2001 Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report, PNNL-13910-SUM

PNNL-13910-SUM

Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2001

Editors

R. W. Hanf G. P. O’Connor T. M. Poston

September 2002

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory under contract DE-AC06-76RL01830, with contributions from CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc.; MACTEC-ERS; Fluor Hanford, Inc. and its subcontractors; and Bechtel Hanford, Inc. and its subcontractors

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute.

Report Inquiries

Inquiries about this booklet or comments and suggestions about its content may be directed to Mr. D. C. (Dana) Ward, Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Closure Division, P.O. Box 550, Richland, Washington 99352 ([email protected]) or to Mr. T. M. (Ted) Poston, K6-75, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, Washington 99352 ([email protected]).

Copies of this summary booklet and the 2001 report have been provided to many public libraries in communities around the Hanford Site and to several university libraries in Washington and Oregon. Copies also can be found at DOE’s Public Reading Room located in the Consolidated Information Center, Room 101L in Richland, Washington. Copies of the 2001 report can be obtained from Mr. R. W. (Bill) Hanf, K6-75, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, Washington 99352 ([email protected]) while supplies last. The reports can be accessed on the Internet at http://hanford-site.pnl.gov/envreport or www.hanford.gov/docs/annualrp01/index.htm.

under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830

ii Contents

Introduction...... 1 Overview of the Hanford Site and its Mission ...... 2 Site Description ...... 4 Operational Areas ...... 6 Current Site Mission ...... 7 Environmental Management ...... 8 Waste Storage, Treatment, and Disposal ...... 9 Waste Tanks ...... 9 Immobilization of Waste Contained in Underground Tanks ...... 11 Liquid Waste Management ...... 12 Solid Waste Management...... 13 Environmental Restoration ...... 14 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility ...... 14 Waste Site Remediation ...... 14 Facility Decommissioning Project ...... 14 Revegetation and Mitigation Planning ...... 15 Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project ...... 15 Compliance with Environmental Regulations ...... 16 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order ...... 18 Environmental Occurrences...... 18 Potential Radiological Doses from 2001 Hanford Operations ...... 19 Environmental Monitoring ...... 21 Facility Effluent Monitoring...... 22 Radioactive Liquid Effluents ...... 22 Radioactive Airborne Emissions ...... 22 Near Facility Monitoring ...... 23 Air ...... 23 Soil and Vegetation ...... 23

iii 100-N Spring Water ...... 24 Investigative Sampling ...... 24 Surface Environmental Surveillance ...... 25 Air ...... 25 Surface Water, Sediment, Shoreline Springs, and Drinking Water ...... 26 Food and Farm Products ...... 31 Fish and Wildlife ...... 32 Soil and Vegetation Surveillance ...... 34 External Radiation and Radiological Surveys ...... 36 Groundwater Monitoring ...... 37 Radioactive Contaminants ...... 37 Chemical Contaminants ...... 40 Vadose Zone Monitoring and Characterization ...... 41 Vadose Zone Characterization ...... 42 Vadose Zone Monitoring ...... 42 Technical Studies in the Vadose Zone ...... 43 Quality Assurance ...... 44 Environmental Research and Monitoring ...... 45 Climate and Meteorology ...... 46 Ecosystem Monitoring and Ecological Compliance ...... 47 Ecosystem Monitoring ...... 47 Ecological Compliance ...... 49 Cultural Resources ...... 50 Stakeholder and Tribal Involvement ...... 51 The Role of Indian Tribes ...... 52 Public Participation ...... 53 Index ...... 54

iv Rabbitbrush blooms across the Hanford Site in early fall. Introduction

This booklet summarizes the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2001. The report includes information and summary data that describe environmental management performance at the site, demonstrate the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, and highlight significant environmental monitoring and surveillance programs and efforts. The document is written to meet requirements and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the needs of the public. This summary booklet is designed to briefly 1) describe the Hanford Site and its mission; 2) describe environmental programs at the Hanford Site; 3) discuss estimated radionuclide exposures to the public from 2001 Hanford Site activities; 4) summarize the status of compliance with the site’s environmental regulations; and 5) present information on environmental monitoring and surveillance and groundwater protection and monitoring. Readers interested in more detailed information can consult the 2001 report or the technical documents cited and listed in that report.

1 The 300 Area is located just north of the city of Richland. This area covers 1.5 square kilometers (~0.6 square mile). Overview of the Hanford Site and its Mission

The Hanford Site lies within the semiarid Pasco Basin of the Columbia Plateau in southeastern Washington State. The site occupies an area of ~1,517 square kilometers (~586 square miles) located north of the city of Richland. This large area has restricted public access and provides a buffer for the smaller areas on the site that historically were used for production of nuclear materials, waste storage, and waste disposal. The Columbia River flows eastward through the northern part of the Hanford Site and then turns south, forming part of the eastern site boundary. The 78,900-hectare (195,000-acre) Hanford Reach National Monument was established by a Presidential Proclamation in June 2000 to protect the nation’s only non-impounded stretch of the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam and the largest remnant of the shrub- steppe ecosystem once blanketing the Columbia River Basin. In 2001, DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were joint stewards of the monument with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administering three major management units of the monument totaling ~66,775 hectares (~165,000 acres).

2 These included the: • Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve Unit, a 312-square-kilometer (120-square-mile) tract of land in the southwestern portion of the Hanford Site • Saddle Mountain Unit, a 130-square-kilometer (50-square-mile) tract of land located north-northwest of the Columbia River and generally south and east of State Highway 24 • Wahluke Unit, a 225 square- kilometer (87-square-mile) tract of land located north and east of both the Columbia River and the Saddle Mountain Unit. The portion of the National Monument administered only by DOE included the: • McGee/Riverlands area (north and west of State Highway 24 and south of the Columbia This map shows management units on the Hanford Reach National Monument. River) • Columbia River islands in Benton County • Columbia River corridor (one- quarter mile inland from the Hanford Reach shoreline) on the Hanford (Benton County) side of the river • sand dunes area located along the Hanford side of the Colum- bia River north of Energy Northwest. Approximately 162 hectares (~400 acres) along the north side coyote of the Columbia River, west of the Vernita Bridge, and south of State Highway 243 is managed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. These lands have served as a safety and security buffer zone for site operations since 1943, resulting in an ecosystem that has been relatively Coyotes are often seen on the Wahluke Unit of the Hanford Reach National untouched for nearly 60 years. Monument. This unit is open to the public.

3 Site Description

The Hanford Site was acquired by the U.S. government in 1943, and until the 1980s, was dedicated primarily to the production of plutonium for national defense and the management of resulting waste. The site is a relatively large, undisturbed area of shrub-steppe that contains a rich, natural diversity of plant and animal species adapted to the region’s semiarid environment. Terrestrial vegetation on the site consists of 10 major plant communities: • sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass The red-tailed hawk is one of the most common hawks found on • sagebrush/cheatgrass or sagebrush/ the Hanford Site. Sandberg’s bluegrass • sagebrush-bitterbrush/cheatgrass • greasewood/cheatgrass-saltgrass site since 1972. Coyotes also are plentiful on the • winterfat/Sandberg’s bluegrass site. The Great Basin pocket mouse is the most • thyme buckwheat/Sandberg’s bluegrass abundant mammal. • cheatgrass-tumble mustard • willow or riparian Waterfowl are numerous on the Columbia River, and the bald eagle is a regular winter • spiny hopsage visitor. Salmon and steelhead are the fish spe- • sand dunes. cies of most interest to sport fishermen and are Approximately 725 species of vascular commonly consumed by local Native American plants have been identified on the site, and tribes. Fall chinook salmon spawn in the The Nature Conservancy of Washington has Hanford Reach, the most important natural further delineated 30 distinct plant community spawning area in the mainstem Columbia. types from within the 10 major communities. Although no Hanford Site plant species There are two types of natural aquatic have been identified from the federal list of habitats on the Hanford Site. One is the Columbia threatened and endangered species, River and associated wetlands, and the second is biodiversity inventory work conducted in upland aquatic sites. The upland sites include collaboration with The Nature Conservancy small spring streams and seeps located mainly on of Washington identified 127 populations of 30 the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Re- different rare plant taxa. serve on Rattlesnake Mountain and West Lake, a Several species of mammals, birds, mol- small, natural pond near the 200 Areas. lusks, reptiles, and invertebrates occurring on More than 1,000 species of insects, 17 the site are candidates for formal listing under species of reptiles and amphibians, 44 species the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and of fish, 258 species of birds, and 42 species of Wildlife Service lists the bald eagle as threat- mammals have been found on the Hanford Site. ened. The bald eagle is a common winter resi- Deer and elk are the major large mammals. A dent and has initiated nesting on the site but herd of Rocky Mountain elk has inhabited the has never successfully produced offspring. 4 Seattle Spokane KITTITAS WASHINGTON COUNTY GRANT N Priest Rapids COUNTY Dam Saddl e Mou YAKIMA ntains COUNTY Vernita Bridge 100-N Springs Saddle Mountain Unit 100-B/C 100-D 100-K 100-N 200-North West 100-H 200-West Wahluke Unit Area Lake Ga Area bl e M 100-F Rattlesnake US 200-East t. Mountain Fitzner/ Hanford Ecology Area Eberhardt Meteorological Arid Lands Station Ecology Hanford Hanford Site Reserve LIGO Boundary y 240 Columbia Town Site Unit w H Generating Station

Fast Flux Ringold Test Facility 400 ver Ri Area a m BENTON r i HAMMER ive k R a Facility COUNTY a Y bi lum West 300 Co Richland Area

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory FRANKLIN Richland Richland North Area COUNTY Former I-182 1100 Area 700 Area

H 5 w 39 y y 24 Hw 0 Pasco I -8 I-1 2 82

Kennewick 5 39 y River w nake H S

BENTON 2 8 COUNTY - WALLA WALLA I 2 1 COUNTY y

Wal la Walla River er Riv Washington Hwy 12 bia McNary Colum Dam 730 Oregon wy H UMATILLA COUNTY

Umatilla

This map shows the Hanford Site and surrounding area.

5 Underground waste storage tanks were built in groups (called Nine nuclear reactors were constructed on the Hanford Site in tank farms) in the 200-East and 200-West Areas on the the 100 Areas during the World War II Manhattan Project and Hanford Site. The tank farms house 177 tanks (149 single-shell the Cold War. This photo shows two 200-foot exhaust stacks tanks and 28 double-shell tanks) that contain millions of liters being demolished at the 100-D/DR Area as part of site of high-level liquid waste. decontamination and decommissioning activities.

Operational Areas

The major DOE operational, administrative, • The 400 Area is located ~8 kilometers (~5 and research areas on and around the Hanford miles) northwest of the 300 Area. This area Site include the following. covers ~0.61 square kilometer (~0.23 square mile). It is the location of the Fast Flux Test • The 100 Areas are located on the south Facility, scheduled for deactivation. shore of the Columbia River. These are the • The 600 Area includes all lands on the sites of nine retired plutonium production Hanford Site not occupied by the 100, 200, reactors (100-B, 100-C, 100-D, 100-DR, 100-F, 300, and 400 Areas. 100-H, 100-KW, 100-KE, 100-N) that occupy ~11 square kilometers (~4 square miles). • The former 311-hectare (768-acre) 1100 Area is located between the 300 Area and the city • The 200-West and 200-EastAreas are located of Richland. This area was transferred to on a plateau and are ~8 and 11 kilometers the Port of Benton as part of DOE’s Rich- (~5 and 7 miles) south and west of the land Operations Office economic diversifi- Columbia River. The 200 Areas cover 16 cation efforts and is no longer part of the square kilometers (6.2 square miles). These site. DOE contractors continue to lease areas house facilities that received and facilities in this area. dissolved irradiated fuel and then separated out valuable plutonium. • The Richland North Area (off the site) includes the Environmental Molecular • The 300 Area is located just north of Rich- Sciences Laboratory and other DOE and land. This area covers ~1.5 square kilome- contractor facilities, mostly leased office ters (~0.6 square mile). Most research and buildings, generally located in the northern development at the site were carried out in part of the city of Richland. the 300 Area.

6 Current Site Mission

For more than 40 years, Hanford Site of radiological and chemical contamination facilities were dedicated primarily to the that threaten the air, groundwater, or production of plutonium for national defense Columbia River. It is expected that most river corridor projects will be completed and management of the resulting waste. by 2012. Hanford was the first plutonium production • transitioning the Central Plateau (200-East site in the world. In recent years, efforts at the and 200-West Areas) from primarily inactive site have focused on developing new waste waste storage to active waste characteriza- treatment and disposal technologies and char- tion, treatment, storage, and disposal acterizing and cleaning up contamination left operations which are expected to last for another 40 years. from historical operations. • preparing for the future by getting ready Currently, the Hanford Site’s primary for long-term stewardship, other U.S. mission includes cleaning up and shrinking Department of Energy and non-DOE the size of the site from ~1,517 square kilometers federal missions, and other public and private sector uses. (~586 square miles) to ~194 square kilometers (~75 square miles) by the target date of 2012. The goal of these strategies is to complete Accelerating Cleanup and Shrinking the Site states major portions of the site cleanup by 2012 and that the cleanup mission includes three strategies: to do so in a manner that protects the environ- • restoring the Columbia River corridor by ment and uses taxpayers‘ dollars wisely and continuing to clean up Hanford Site sources efficiently.

Hanford At A Glance

Location The U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State near the city of Richland.

Dominant Feature Rattlesnake Mountain on the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve rises 1,074 meters (3,525 feet) above sea level.

Size The site covers approximately 1,517 square kilometers (586 square miles).

Employees DOE and its contractors employed ~10,000 workers in fiscal year 2001.

Mission Hanford’s mission is to safely clean up and manage the site’s legacy wastes and shrink the site.

Budget The annual budget is approximately $1.6 billion.

Site Management DOE Richland Operations Office and DOE Office of River Protection

Prime Contractors Fluor Hanford, Inc. (nuclear legacy cleanup), Battelle Memorial Institute operates Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (research and development), Bechtel Hanford, Inc. (environmental restoration), Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (occupa- tional and environmental health services), CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (storing and retrieving waste stored in 177 underground tanks), MACTEC-ERS (tank farm and waste site vadose zone characterization), and Bechtel National, Inc. (design, build, and commission a waste treatment plant to vitrify Hanford’s tank waste).

7 This photo shows construction of the new Waste Treatment Plant currently being built on the Hanford Site. The plant is Environmental located on the Central Plateau outside of the 200-East Area. Management

A major focus of DOE’s environmental management mission at Hanford is cleanup of the site’s waste from more than 45 years of nuclear weapons production. Managing this legacy waste—as well as other waste from past and current operations—involves safe storage, treatment, and final disposal of a large amount and variety of radioactive and chemical materials. It also involves remediating several hundred inactive waste disposal sites and stabilizing inactive facilities and the material inside them to prevent leaks or avoidable radiation exposures. Environmental restoration and pollution prevention are key parts of the environmental management mission. An agreement between DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), known as the Tri-Party Agreement, provides the legal and procedural basis for cleanup of waste sites at Hanford. The Tri-Party Agreement contains a schedule, using numerous enforceable major and interim milestones and unenforceable target dates, which reflects a concerted goal of achieving full regulatory compliance and remediation.

8 The Hanford Site contains underground storage tanks that This historical photo shows construction of radioactive waste contain 204 million liters (54 million gallons) of hazardous and storage tanks. There were 177 tanks built at the Hanford Site radioactive wastes–enough to fill nearly 2,800 railroad tanker between 1943 and 1985. A major focus of DOE’s mission is to cars. clean up the legacy waste stored in these tanks. Waste Storage, Treatment, and Disposal

Waste management at Hanford includes In addition to newly generated waste, designing, building, and operating a variety of significant quantities of legacy waste remain facilities to store, treat, and prepare the waste from years of nuclear material production and for disposal. At Hanford, a large part of this waste management activities. Most legacy process involves safely managing 177 under- waste from past operations at the Hanford Site ground storage tanks (149 single-shell tanks resides in waste sites that comply with the and 28 double-shell tanks) that contain millions Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of liters of high-level liquid waste. or is stored awaiting cleanup and ultimate safe storage or disposal. Examples include high- Cleanup activities on the Hanford Site level radioactive waste stored in single- and generate radioactive, hazardous, and mixed double-shell tanks and transuranic waste waste. This waste is handled and prepared for stored in vaults and on storage pads. safe storage on the site or shipped to offsite facilities for treatment and disposal. In 2001, cleanup activities generated 328,500 kilograms Waste Tanks (724,300 pounds) of solid mixed waste and 1.7 million kilograms (3.7 million pounds) of radio- Underground waste storage tanks were active waste on the Hanford Site. There were built in groups (called tank farms) in the 200- also 127,000 kilograms (280,000 pounds) of East and 200-West Areas. The farms contain mixed waste and 4.7 million kilograms (10.4 underground pipes so waste can be pumped million pounds) of radioactive waste received between tanks, between farms, and between at Hanford from offsite sources. the 200-East and 200-West Areas. 9 Hanford workers monitor waste storage tanks every day. Since Sixty percent of the nation's nuclear waste is stored in tanks at the 1950s, waste leaks from 67 single-shell tanks have been the Hanford Site. The DOE's goal is to safely remove liquid detected, and some of this waste has reached the groundwater waste from the tanks, separate the radioactive elements from underlying the 200 Areas. non-radioactive chemicals, and a create a solid form of waste that can be disposed.

Sixty percent of the nation’s nuclear waste is The status of the waste tanks as of Decem- stored in tanks at the Hanford Site. The DOE’s ber 2001 is as follows: goal is to safely remove the liquid waste from • number of tanks assumed to have leaked the tanks, separate the radioactive elements - 67 single-shell tanks from non-radioactive chemicals, and create a - 0 double-shell tanks solid form of waste that can be disposed. The • chronology of single-shell tank leaks approach selected to solidify the waste is called - 1956: first high-level waste tank reported as sus- vitrification, a process that turns the liquid into pected of leaking (tank 241-U-104) a rock-like glass. - 1973: largest estimated leak reported (tank 241- T-106; 435,000 liters [115,000 gallons]) Since the 1950s, waste leaks from 67 single- - 1988: tanks 241-AX-102, -C-201, -C-202, -C- shell tanks have been detected, and some of this 204, and -SX-104 confirmed as having leaked waste has reached the groundwater underlying - 1992: latest tank (241-T-101) added to list of the 200 Areas. To date, scientists estimate that tanks assumed to have leaked, bringing total to 2.8 to 3.9 million liters (750,000 to 1 million 67 single-shell tanks gallons) of radioactive waste have leaked from - 1994: tank 241-T-111 was declared to have leaked single-shell tanks. All single-shell tanks have again exceeded their design life by about 30 years. To date, 129 of 149 (87%) single-shell tanks In 1998, Congress established the DOE have been stabilized, and the tank stabilization Office of River Protection to manage storage, program is ahead of schedule. retrieval, treatment, and disposal of the high- During 2001, four tanks were declared level liquid waste stored in the underground stable. Liquid waste from 13 single-shell tanks tanks and close the tank farm facilities at the was pumped into the double-shell tank system, Hanford Site. removing 1.9 million liters (500,000 gallons) of waste from the single-shell tanks.

10 Vitrification turns waste into glass that appears hard, shiny, DOE has chosen vitrification to stabilize and contain spilled and rock like. The glass traps radioactive and hazardous waste and leaking radioactive and hazardous chemical waste. and keeps them from escaping into the environment. Vitrification uses electric power to melt soil and rock; the mass cools into glasslike blocks that will hold materials safely.

facilities to deliver waste to the planned Waste Immobilization of Waste Contained in Treatment Plant. Underground Tanks During 2001, infrastructure construction for the Waste Treatment Plant was completed. This Approximately 204 million liters (54 million included installation of an electrical substation, gallons) of radioactive and hazardous waste are potable water services, effluent piping systems, stored in 149 underground single-shell tanks and roads. Additionally, excavation for the and 28 underground double-shell tanks. This Waste Treatment Plant footprint was begun. waste is an accumulation of more than 40 years Construction, as defined by the Tri-Party of plutonium production operations. The DOE Agreement, began in 2002. River Protection Project currently is upgrading Treatment will separate the waste into a tank farm facilities to deliver waste from under- low-radioactivity fraction and a high radioac- ground storage tanks to a new waste treatment tivity and transuranic fraction. Both fractions facility. will be vitrified in a process that will destroy The Waste Treatment Plant will be built or extract organic constituents, neutralize or on 26 hectares (65 acres) located on the Central deactivate dangerous waste, and immobilize Plateau outside of the Hanford 200-East Area. toxic metals. Currently, three major facilities are planned: The immobilized low-radioactivity portion a pretreatment facility, a high-level waste will be disposed of in a facility on the Hanford vitrification facility, and a low-activity waste Site. The immobilized high-radioactivity fraction vitrification facility. Supporting facilities also will be stored onsite until a geologic repository will be constructed. The River Protection is available offsite for permanent disposal. Project is currently upgrading tank farm

11 Liquid Waste Management

Liquid waste is managed in treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to comply with RCRA and state regulations, as briefly described below. 242-A Evaporator

The 242-A Evaporator processes double-shell tank waste into a concentrate and a process condensate stream. In 2001, the evaporator treated 3.2 million liters (840,000 gallons) of tank waste and produced 3.1 million liters (820,000 The 242-A Evaporator concentrates dilute liquid tank waste by gallons) of process condensate that were sent evaporation. In 2001, the Evaporator treated 3.2 million liters to the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility. (840,000 gallons) of tank waste. Liquid Effluent Retention Facility

This facility consists of three RCRA-compliant surface basins that temporarily store liquid waste, including condensate from the 242-A Evaporator. Approximately 32.7 million liters (8.6 million gallons) of liquid waste were stored in the facility’s basins at the end of 2001. Effluent Treatment Facility

Liquid effluents are treated in the Effluent Treatment Facility (200-East Area) to remove toxic metals, radionuclides, and ammonia and The three basins shown in this photo of the Liquid Effluent destroy organic compounds. The treated effluent Retention Facility are lined with two, flexible, high-density is stored in verification tanks, sampled and ana- polyethylene membranes. lyzed, and discharged to the State-Approved Land Disposal Site. Approximately 95.0 million liters (25.1 million gallons) of aqueous waste were treated in 2001. 200 Areas Treated Effluent Disposal Facility

This facility collects and disposes of non- RCRA-permitted waste that has been treated using best available technology/all known and reasonable treatment. In 2001, ~484 million liters (~128 million gallons) of effluent were discharged to two 2-hectare (5-acre) disposal ponds located east of the 200-East Area.

The 200 Areas Treated Effluent Disposal Facility treats and stores radioactive waste. 12 Solid Waste Management

Treatment, storage, and disposal of solid waste takes place at a number of locations on the Hanford Site, such as those described in the following paragraphs. Solid waste may originate from work on the Hanford Site or from sources offsite that are authorized by DOE to ship waste to the site. Central Waste Complex

Ongoing cleanup and research and development activities, as well as remediation activities, The Central Waste Complex receives waste from generate the waste received at the Central Hanford Site cleanup activities and from other DOE Waste Complex from onsite sources. The waste and Defense Department facilities. includes low-level, transuranic, and mixed waste as well as radioactively contaminated polychlorinated biphenyls. Waste Receiving and Processing Facility

The Waste Receiving and Processing Facility analyzes, characterizes, and prepares drums and boxes of waste for disposal. Waste destined for the facility includes Hanford’s legacy waste as well as newly generated waste from current site cleanup activities. The waste consists primarily of cloth, paper, rubber, metal, and plastic. Navy Reactor Compartments Cloth, paper, rubber, metal, and plastic are sent to the Waste Receiving and Processing Facility. Eight disposal packages containing defueled U.S. Navy reactor compartments were received in the 200-East Area during 2001. Four were submarine reactor compartments, and four were cruiser reactor compartments. This brings the total number of reactor compartments received to 102. All Navy reactor compartments shipped to the Hanford Site for disposal have originated from decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines or cruisers. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates the disposal of reactor compartments as dangerous waste because lead is used as shielding. The reactor compartments Defueled reactor components from nuclear-powered submarines also are managed as mixed waste because of and cruisers are barged to the Hanford Site and buried in a their radioactivity. trench in the 200-East Area. 13 Environmental Restoration

Environmental restoration at Hanford involves characterizing and remediating contaminated soil and groundwater; stabilizing contaminated soil; remediating disposal sites; decontaminating, decommissioning, and demolishing former plutonium production process buildings, nuclear reactors, and separa- tion plants; maintaining inactive waste sites; transitioning facilities into the surveillance and maintenance program; and mitigating effects to biological and cultural resources from site As of early 2002, the Environmental Restoration Disposal development and environmental cleanup and Facility had received 3.1 million metric tons (3.4 million tons) of contaminated soil and other waste. restoration activities. Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Waste Site Remediation This disposal facility is located near the 200-West Area and began operations in July Remediation continued through 2001 at 1996. Constructed with double liners and a several liquid waste disposal sites in the leachate collection system, the facility was 100-B/C, 100-H, 100-F, and 100-N Areas. In designed to serve as the central disposal site 2001, over 540,000 million metric tons (over for contaminated waste removed during 594,000 tons) of contaminated soil were re- cleanup operations conducted under the moved from the remediation sites. This soil Comprehensive Environmental Response, has been transported to the Environmental Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Restoration Disposal Facility since the beginning on the Hanford Site. of waste site remediation operations in 1996. Cleanup materials may include soil, rubble, or other solid waste materials contaminated Facility Decommissioning Project with hazardous, low-level radioactive, or mixed (combined hazardous chemical and radioactive) Decontamination and decommissioning waste. As of early 2002, the facility had received activities continued in 2001 in the 100-D/DR, 3.1 million metric tons (3.43 million tons) of 100-H, and 100-F Areas. These activities are contaminated soil and other waste. conducted to support the interim safe storage

Status of Waste Site Remediation

Location of Waste Site Amount of Contaminated Soils Removed, metric tons (tons)

100-B/C Area 110,000 (121,000) in 2001; 732,000 (807,000) since startup

100-H Area 136,000 (150,000) in 2001; 413,000 (455,000) since startup

100-F Area 321,000 (353,000) in 2001; 470,000 (517,000) since startup

100-N Area 112,000 (123,000) since startup

14 of the four reactor buildings (D, DR, F, and H) for up to 75 years. Interim safe storage minimizes potential risks to the environment, employees, and the public and reduces surveil- Sagebrush lance and maintenance costs. These activities are conducted as non-time-critical removal actions under CERCLA. Demolition of D Reac- tor also was initiated in 2001 and progressed through three areas (the lunchroom, the valve pit and shops, and the fan room and ventilation system tunnels). Demolition work at F Reactor Fuel Storage Basin continues. Revegetation and Mitigation Planning

The wetland habitat by the 100-B/C Area created in early 2000 near the Columbia River About 90,000 sagebrush seedlings were planted on the Fitzner/ was enhanced with the planting of an additional Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve as part of revegetation 1.6 hectares (4 acres) along the slopes of Borrow efforts on the Reserve. Pit 24. This planting effort will provide the borrow area with a much needed seed source to promote continual restoration of the pit. Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration In January 2001, 50 bitterbrush seedlings were planted as additional mitigation for Project shrubs lost during the initial stages of the The Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration 618-4 Burial Ground remediation. Project brings together all activities that affect A new electrical transmission line with tower Hanford’s subsurface. Restoring the condition pads was installed to provide electrical power to of the groundwater under the Hanford Site is a the planned vitrification plant near the 200-East major focus of the project. The goal of ground- Area. The areas surrounding the tower pads that water restoration is to prevent contaminants were disturbed during pad installations were from entering the Columbia River, reduce the revegetated during February 2001. contamination in areas of high concentration, prevent the movement of contamination, and Monitoring of survival and growth contin- protect human health and the environment. ued for ~90,000 sagebrush seedlings that were planted on about 90 hectares (222 acres) at nine During 2001, the Integration Project team locations on the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands compiled an array of accomplishments that Ecology Reserve Unit during December 2000. span its key focus areas – Site-Wide Fieldwork This effort was the last phase of sagebrush Integration Focus Area, the System Assessment transplanting as compensatory mitigation for Capability Focus Area, Science and Technology the disturbance of sagebrush habitat resulting Focus Area, Integration of Information Focus from development of the site and infrastructure Area, Technical Review Focus Area, and Public for the planned waste vitrification facility. Involvement Focus Area. The efforts within Monitoring of these plants will continue these task areas directly support the DOE’s plan through fiscal year 2004. for the Hanford Site.

15 Hanford activities follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The site has eight plant species and five bird species Compliance on the federal or state list of threatened or endangered species. with Environmental Regulations

It is DOE’s policy that all activities be carried out in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, DOE Orders, Secretary of Energy Notices, DOE Headquarters and site operations office directives, policies, and guidance. This includes those specific requirements, actions, plans, and schedules identified in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also known as the Tri-Party Agreement) and other compliance or consent agreements. Both the DOE Richland Operations Office and the DOE Office of River Protection recognize the importance of maintaining a program of self-assessment and regulatory reporting to assure that environmental compliance is achieved and maintained at the Hanford Site. The table on the following page summarizes DOE’s compliance with federal acts at the Hanford Site in 2001. Performance related to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order is described in the following subsection.

16 Compliance with Federal Acts at the Hanford Site in 2001

Regulation What it Covers 2001 Status

Comprehensive Environmental Sites already contaminated by Work on these sites followed CERCLA requirements Response, Compensation, and hazardous materials and met the schedules established by the Tri-Party Liability Act (CERCLA) Agreement.

Emergency Planning and The public’s right to information The Hanford Site met the reporting requirements Community Right-to-Know Act about hazardous chemicals in contained in this act. the community and establishes emergency planning procedures

Resource Conservation and Hazardous waste being generated, The Washington State Department of Ecology Recovery Act (RCRA) transported, stored, treated, or identified two violations during 2001. Both viola- disposed. The act primarily covers tions were associated with chemical storage. DOE ongoing waste management at has implemented corrective action for one and has active facilities. appealed the other. Resolution efforts are ongoing.

Clean Air Act Air quality, including emissions According to the Washington State Department from facilities and diffuse and of Health, air emissions from Hanford Site facilities unmonitored sources were well below state and federal standards. However, Washington State Department of Health issued five notices of corrective action regarding stack emissions and corrective efforts are ongoing.

Clean Water Act Discharges to U.S. waters The Hanford Site had two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits and seven State Wastewater Discharge Permits in 2001.

Safe Drinking Water Act Drinking water supplies operated There were 10 public water systems monitored on the by DOE Hanford Site in 2001.

Toxic Substances Control Act Primarily chemicals called poly- In 2001, DOE formed a team to resolve issues chlorinated biphenyls related to polychlorinated biphenyl issues on a sitewide basis at Hanford. The team created a users guide in 2001 to assure consistent interpre- tation and implementation of this act.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Storage and use of pesticides At the Hanford Site, pesticides are applied by and Rodenticide Act licensed commercial pesticide operators.

Endangered Species Act Rare species of plants and animals Hanford activities followed the requirements of this act. The Hanford Site has eight plant species, two fish species, and five bird species on the federal or state list of threatened or endangered species.

American Indian Religious Cultural resources One hundred fifty cultural resources reviews were Freedom Act, Antiquities Act, conducted on the Hanford Site. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Historic Sites Buildings and Antiquities Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

National Environmental Policy Act Environmental impact statements Environmental impact statements and environmental for federal projects assessments were prepared or conducted as needed.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Migratory birds or their feathers, Hanford activities used the ecological review process eggs, or nests as needed to minimize any adverse effects to migratory birds. Over 100 species of birds on Hanford are protected by this act.

17 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

A key element in Hanford’s compliance program is the Tri-Party Agreement. The Tri-Party Agreement is an agreement among the EPA, Washington State Department of Ecology, and DOE to achieve compliance with the remedial action provisions of the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, New photo: related to Tri- and Liability Act (CERCLA) and with treatment, Party Agreement storage, and disposal unit regulation and corrective action provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Tri-Party Agreement 1) defines the RCRA and the CERCLA cleanup commitments, 2) establishes responsibilities, 3) provides a Waste tank safety issues for high-priority watch list basis for budgeting, and 4) reflects a concerted tanks were mitigated or resolved in accordance with goal to achieve regulatory compliance and Tri-Party Agreement milestone M40-00. remediation with enforceable milestones in In 2001, 39 of 41 specific Tri-Party Agreement an aggressive manner. cleanup milestones were completed on or before The Tri-Party Agreement has continued to their required due dates. One milestone was delayed evolve as site cleanup progresses. Significant because of unanticipated costs and contracting is- changes to the agreement have been negotiated sues, and one is expected to be completed under an to meet the changing conditions and cleanup agreement between DOE and the Washington State needs on the Hanford Site. Department of Ecology. Environmental Occurrences

An environmental occurrence is any sudden During 2001, there were no environmentally or sustained deviation from a regulated or significant emergency occurrence reports filed. planned performance at a DOE operation that There was one environmentally significant un- has environmental protection and compliance usual occurrence report filed in 2001. significance. In May 2001, a subcontractor working at the Environmental releases of radioactive and 600-23 burial ground unearthed an unknown regulated materials from the Hanford Site are piece of equipment with a liquid reservoir. Ap- reported to DOE and other federal and state proximately 38 liters (10 gallons) of an oily sub- agencies as required by law. The specific agen- stance had leaked from this reservoir into the cies notified depend on the type, amount, and ground. Laboratory analysis revealed the pres- location of the individual occurrence. The ence of polychlorinated biphenyls in the spilled Hanford Site Occurrence Notification Center substance. The spill was entirely contained, and maintains both a computer database and a the equipment and contaminated soil were dis- hardcopy file of event descriptions and correc- posed of at the Environmental Restoration Dis- tive actions. posal Facility. 18 Driving or riding in a car 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile) carries the same risk as the 2001 radiation dose to a maximally exposed individual. This individual would receive the same dose by Potential flying about 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) on a commercial airliner. Radiological Doses from 2001 Hanford Operations

In 2001, scientists evaluated potential radiological doses to the public and biota resulting from exposure to Hanford Site liquid effluents and airborne emissions to determine compliance with pertinent regulations and limits. The potential dose to the maximally exposed individual in 2001 from site operations was 0.009 millirem (9 x 10-5 millisievert) per year. Special exposure scenarios not included in this dose estimate include the hunting of game animals residing on the Hanford Site, and exposure to radiation at a publicly accessible location near the site boundary with the maximum exposure rate. Doses from these scenarios were small compared to the annual DOE dose limit. The national average dose from background sources, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection, is ~300 millirems (3 millisieverts) per year; the current DOE radiological dose limit for a member of the public is 100 millirems (1 millisievert) per year. There- fore, the maximally exposed individual potentially received 0.009% of the DOE limit and 0.003% of the national average background dose.

19 Summary of Potential Radiological Doses from 2001 Hanford Operations

Radiological Dose Dose Parameters Dose Assessments

Average radiological dose The dose limit includes sources such as 300 millirems per year from natural sources and cosmic, terrestrial, internal, and radon. consumer products

DOE’s annual radiological The dose limit includes air, drinking water, 100 millirems per year dose limit for a member of food, recreation and external radiation the public exposure pathways.

Maximally exposed individual This hypothetical person’s diet, dwelling 0.009 millirem per year place, and other factors were chosen to maximize the combined doses from all reasonable environmental pathways of exposure to radionuclides in Hanford Site effluents and emissions. In 2001, this individual was located at Sagemoor, directly across the Columbia River from the 300 Area.

Collective dose The collective dose is based on a population 0.4 person-rem per year residing within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of Hanford Site operating areas.

Maximum Hanford Site Boundary dose rates are not used to 0.015 millirem per hour boundary dose calculate annual doses to the general public because no one can actually reside at the boundary locations. The highest boundary location exposure rate in 2001 was measured along the 100-N Area shoreline of the Columbia River.

Dose to people consuming The potential dose to Fast Flux Test Facility ~0.02 millirem per year drinking water at the Fast Flux workers assumes a consumption of 1 liter of Test Facility drinking water from onsite wells per day (0.26 gallon per day) for 240 days.

Maximum dose to non-DOE Doses to members of the public employed 0.12 millirem per year workers on the site (per Clean at non-DOE facilities that were outside Air Act standards) access-controlled areas on the Hanford Site.

Individual dose from Various non-DOE industrial sources of public ~0.05 millirem per year non-DOE sources radiation exposure exist at or near the Hanford Site.

20 Environmental monitoring at the Hanford Site consists of collecting and analyzing samples of air, surface water, groundwater, drinking water, soil, natural vegetation, agricultural products, fish, and wildlife. Air emissions and Environmental liquid discharges that may contain radioactive or hazardous materials also are monitored at and near site facilities. Monitoring

Environmental monitoring at the Hanford Site includes near-facility environmental monitoring, surface environmental surveillance, groundwater monitoring, and vadose zone monitoring. Near-facility monitoring includes the analysis of environmental samples collected near major nuclear-related installations, waste storage and disposal units, and remediation sites. Surface environmental surveillance consists of sampling and analyzing various media on and around the site to detect potential contaminants and assess their significance to environmental and human health. Groundwater sampling is conducted to determine the distribution of radiological and chemical constituents in groundwater. Vadose monitoring is conducted to better understand and alleviate the spread of subsurface contamination. The overall objectives of these monitoring and surveillance programs are to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; confirm adherence to DOE environmental protection policies; and support environmental management decisions.

21 Facility Effluent Monitoring

Liquid and airborne effluents that may contain radioactive or hazardous constituents Radioactive Airborne Emissions are continually monitored when released to Radioactive airborne emissions from the the environment at the Hanford Site. Facility Hanford Site to the surrounding region are a operators perform the monitoring mainly potential source of human exposure. Most of through analyzing samples collected at points the radionuclides in effluents at the site are of release into the environment. Effluent moni- nearing levels indistinguishable from the low toring data are evaluated to determine the de- concentrations in the environment that occur gree of regulatory compliance for each facility naturally or originated from atmospheric and/or the entire site. The evaluations are also nuclear-weapons testing. The environmental useful to assess the effectiveness of effluent cleanup mission is largely responsible for the treatment and pollution-management practices. downward trend in radioactive emissions at In 2001, only facilities in the 200 Areas Hanford. discharged radioactive liquid effluents to the The continuous monitoring of radioactive ground, which went to the State-Approved emissions involves analyzing samples collected Land Disposal Site. Radioactive air emissions at points of discharge to the environment, usu- usually come from a building stack or a vent. ally from a stack or vent. Samples are analyzed Radioactive emission discharge points are for gross alpha and gross beta concentrations as located in the 100, 200, 300, and 400 Areas. well as for selected radionuclides. Non-radioactive air pollutants from such things as diesel-powered electrical generating plants In the 100 Areas, radioactive airborne were monitored. In 2001, the 200 Areas tank emissions originated from four points: the farms produced reportable ammonia emissions. evaporation at the water-filled 100-K East and 100-K West Fuel Storage Basins, which contain Radioactive Liquid Effluents irradiated nuclear fuel, the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, the 105-KW integrated water Liquid effluents are discharged from facilities treatment filter backwash system, and a low- in all areas of the Hanford Site. Effluents that level radiological laboratory. normally or potentially contain radionuclides In the 200 Areas, primary sources of radio- include cooling water, steam condensate, process nuclide emissions were the Plutonium-Uranium condensate, and wastewater from laboratories Extraction Plant, Plutonium Finishing Plant, and chemical sewers. These wastewater T Plant, 222-S Laboratory, underground waste streams are sampled and analyzed for total storage tanks, and waste evaporators. alpha and total beta levels as well as for selected radionuclides. In 2001, 49 radioactive emission discharge points were active in the 200 Areas. In the 300 In 2001, only facilities in the 200 Areas Area, primary sources of airborne radionuclide discharged radioactive liquid effluents to the emissions were the 324 Waste Technology Engi- ground, which went to a state-permitted dis- neering Laboratory, 325 Applied Chemistry posal site at Hanford. Liquid waste containing Laboratory, 327 Post-Irradiation Laboratory, both radioactive and hazardous contaminants and 340 Vault and Tanks. are stored at the 200 Areas in underground waste storage tanks or monitored interim During 2001, the 600 Area had two radioac- storage facilities. tive emission points on the site.

22 Air samples collected in 2001 from areas located at or directly Local teachers have managed and operated community- adjacent to Hanford Site facilities had higher radionuclide operated environmental monitoring stations at nine locations concentrations than did those samples collected farther away. near the Hanford Site since 1990. Near-Facility Monitoring

Near-facility environmental monitoring is at or within ~500 meters (~1,500 feet) of sites defined as routine monitoring near facilities and/or facilities having the potential for, or that have the potential to discharge, or have history of, environmental releases and were discharged, stored, or disposed of radioactive predominantly located in the prevailing down- or hazardous contaminants. Monitoring loca- wind direction. tions are associated with nuclear facilities such Air samples collected in 2001 from areas lo- as the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Canister Stor- cated at or directly adjacent to Hanford Site fa- age Building, and the 100-K Fuel Storage cilities had higher radionuclide concentrations Basins; inactive nuclear facilities such as N than did those samples collected farther away. Reactor and the Plutonium-Uranium Extraction In general, radionuclide concentrations in most Plant; and active and inactive waste storage or air samples collected near facilities in 2001 were disposal facilities such as burial grounds, cribs, at or near background levels. ditches, ponds, underground waste storage tanks, and trenches. Soil and Vegetation Air Near-facility soil and vegetation sampling is conducted to detect the potential migration and In 2001, routine monitoring for radioactivity deposition of facility effluents and emissions. In in air near Hanford Site facilities used a net- 2001, 92 soil samples and 75 vegetation samples work of continuously operating samplers at 76 were collected for analysis. The samples were locations. Air samplers were located primarily collected on or adjacent to waste disposal sites

23 Need and from locations photo of Investigative downwind and near or rabbitbrush within the boundaries of operating facilities Sampling and remedial action Investigative sam- sites. pling was conducted in In soil samples, operations areas to cobalt-60, strontium-90, monitor the presence or cesium-137, plutonium- movement of radioac- 239/240, and uranium tive and/or hazardous were detected consis- materials around areas tently in 2001. The of known or suspected concentrations of these contamination or to radionuclides were verify radiological elevated near and Perennial vegetation samples have been collected on and conditions at specific within facility bound- around the Hanford Site for more than 50 years. Vegetation project sites. aries compared to back- samples consist of new growth leaf cuttings. Generally, the pre- ground concentrations. dominant radionuclides In vegetation samples, strontium-90, discovered during these efforts were cesium-137, cobalt-60, cesium-137, plutonium-239/240, strontium-90, and plutonium-239/240 in the and uranium were detected consistently in 100 and 200 Areas and uranium-234, -235, and 2001. Concentrations of these radionuclides -238 in the 300 Area. were elevated near and within facility bound- Investigative samples collected in 2001 aries compared to concentrations measured included mammals, animal feces, soils, and offsite. The results demonstrate a high degree vegetation. In 2001, there were 20 instances of of variability. radiological contamination in investigative soil 100-N Spring Water samples. There were 31 instances of radiological Groundwater springs and/or shoreline contamination in investigative vegetation seepage wells at the 100-N Springs are sampled samples in 2001. Of the 31 instances, 27 were annually to verify that the reported radionuclide identified as tumbleweeds or tumbleweed releases to the Columbia River are not under- fragments, one as grass, and three as rabbit- reported. The amount of radionuclides entering brush. None of these samples were analyzed the Columbia River at these springs is calculated for specific radionuclide activities. based on analyses of monthly samples collected In 2001, 10 wildlife samples were collected. near the shoreline. The maximum radionuclide concentrations in In 2001, the levels of strontium-90 detected investigative wildlife samples in 2001 were in in samples from riverbank springs were highest mouse feces collected in the 200-West Area. Con- in N Springs wells Y302 and Y303. None of the taminants included strontium-89/90, cesium-137, concentrations exceeded the DOE derived europium-154, europium-155, plutonium-238, concentration guide value. Tritium and gamma- and plutonium-239/240. The numbers of animals emitting radionuclide concentrations were found to be radioactively contaminated in 2001 below analytical detection limits in 2001. were the lowest since 1994, and the range of radionuclide activities were within historical levels.

24 Surface Environmental Surveillance

The Surface Environmental Surveillance Project measures the concentration of radionuclides and chemicals in environmental media and assesses potential effects of these materials on the environment and the public. Samples of air, surface water, sediment, soil and natural vegetation, agricultural products, fish, and wildlife are collected routinely or periodically. Ambient external radiation also is measured. Air

Atmospheric releases of radioactive material from the Hanford Site to the surrounding region are a potential source of human exposure. Radioactive constituents in air are monitored at a network of air sampling locations on and around the Hanford Site. Food products were collected routinely in 2001 at several locations surrounding the Hanford Site. Routine samples were Airborne radionuclide samples were collected collected from locations downwind and upwind of the site. at 45 continuously operating samplers: 24 on Samples also were collected at locations distant from the site to the Hanford Site, 11 near the site perimeter, 8 provide information on reference radiation levels in foodstuffs. in nearby communities, and 2 in distant communities. Nine stations were community- operated environmental surveillance stations managed and operated by local school teachers as part of an ongoing DOE-sponsored program to promote public awareness of Hanford Site environmental monitoring programs. At all locations, particulates were filtered from the air and analyzed for radionuclides. Air was sampled and analyzed for selected airborne radionuclides at key locations. Several radionuclides released at the site also are found worldwide from two other sources: naturally occurring radionuclides and radioactive fallout from historical nuclear activities not associated with Hanford operations. The potential influence of emissions from site activities on local radionuclide concentrations was evaluated by comparing Soil samples are collected on and off of the Hanford Site and differences between concentrations measured at analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides. Analytical results distant locations within the region and concentra- are compared to results from previous years. There has been no tions measured at the site perimeter. appreciable increase in radionuclide concentrations in onsite soil in the last several years.

25 In 2001, the annual Columbia River Water average gross alpha air concentrations Radiological and measured at Hanford chemical contaminants were comparable to enter the Columbia levels measured at River along the Hanford distant community Reach through seepage locations, indicating of groundwater that onsite levels were contaminated from past predominantly a result operations and of natural sources and permitted, direct- worldwide radioactive discharges of liquid fallout. effluents from Hanford facilities. Water The average gross samples were collected alpha concentrations for Scientists routinely sample Columbia River water to assess potential environmental effects from Hanford operations. All from the river and perimeter locations and analyzed to determine nearby communities radiological contaminant concentrations measured in 2001 were less than DOE derived concentration guides and compliance with water were higher than the Washington State ambient surface-water quality criteria levels. quality standards. onsite and distant averages. The site perimeter All radiological con- annual average gross beta air concentration was taminant concentrations measured in Columbia slightly higher than distant community concen- River water in 2001 were less than DOE derived trations; however, the difference was not statis- concentration guides and Washington State ambi- tically significant. ent surface-water quality criteria levels. The concentrations of tritium, iodine-129, and total Annual average atmospheric tritium con- uranium were significantly higher at the Richland centrations for 2001 at the Hanford Site were Pumphouse than at Priest Rapids Dam, indicat- slightly higher than values reported for 1996 ing a contribution along the Hanford Reach. All through 2000. More tritium was released from concentrations were similar to those observed the 300 Area in 2001 than in 2000, accounting in recent years. for the increase in averages from 2000 to 2001. The highest measured concentration was only Transect (multiple samples collected across 0.036% of the DOE derived concentration guide. the river) and near-shore sampling in 2001 revealed elevated tritium levels along the Surface Water, Sediment, Shoreline Springs, Benton County shoreline near the 100-N Area, Hanford town site, 300 Area, and Richland and Drinking Water Pumphouse. Total uranium concentrations were elevated Samples of surface water and sediment on along the Franklin County shoreline near the and near the Hanford Site were collected and 300 Area and the Richland Pumphouse and analyzed to determine the potential impact to likely resulted from groundwater seepage and the public and the aquatic environment from water from irrigation return canals on the east Hanford-originated radiological and chemical shore of the river that contained naturally oc- contaminants. Samples of Hanford Site curring uranium. Slightly elevated strontium-90 drinking water are collected, analyzed, and concentrations were detected in some water compared with established federal and state samples collected at near-shore locations at the standards. 100-N Area. 26 Several metals and addition to being anions were detected present in Hanford Site in transect samples effluents. Radionuclide collected upstream and concentrations reported downstream of the site. in river sediment in Arsenic, antimony, 2001 were similar to cadmium, chromium, those reported for lead, nickel, thallium, previous years. No and zinc were detected federal or state fresh- in most samples, with water sediment criteria similar levels at most are available to assess locations. the sediment quality of the Columbia River. Nitrate, sulfate, and chloride concentrations Samples of water and sediment from river bank springs Riverbank Spring Water were slightly elevated, entering the Columbia River are analyzed for radionuclides, compared to mid-river Water samples were metals, and anions. In 2001, all radiological contaminant samples, along the collected from 10 concentrations measured were less than the DOE derived Franklin County shore- Columbia River shore- concentration guides. line at the Richland line spring areas along Pumphouse transects the Hanford Site in and likely resulted from groundwater seepage 2001. The below normal flows on the Columbia associated with extensive irrigation north and River in 2001 allowed samples of water from east of the Columbia River. All metal and anion riverbank springs to be collected in the spring concentrations (including arsenic) in Columbia and fall. All samples collected during 2001 River water samples collected in 2001 were were analyzed for gamma-emitting radionu- below regulatory limits and similar to those clides, gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium. observed in the past. Samples from selected springs were analyzed for strontium-90, technetium-99, iodine-129, Columbia River Sediment and uranium-234, -235, and -238. All samples were analyzed for metals and anions, with In 2001, samples of Columbia River surface volatile organic compounds analyzed at sediment were collected above McNary Dam selected locations. All analyses were conducted (downstream of the site), from the Priest Rapids on unfiltered samples, except for metals analy- Dam pool (upstream of the site), and along the ses, which were conducted for both filtered and Hanford Reach (including some riverbank unfiltered samples. springs). In addition, sediment samples were collected above Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River. Hanford-origin contaminants continued to be detected in water from riverbank springs Radionuclides consistently detected in river entering the Columbia River along the Hanford sediment adjacent and downstream of the Site during 2001. The locations and extent of Hanford Site during 2001 included potassium- contaminated discharges were consistent with 40, cesium-137, uranium-238, plutonium-238, recent groundwater surveys. Tritium, strontium-90, and plutonium-239/240. The concentrations of technetium-99, iodine-129, uranium-234, -235, all other radionuclides were below detection and -238, metals, and anions (chloride, fluoride, limits for most samples. Cesium-137 and pluto- nitrate, and sulfate) were detected in spring nium isotopes exist in worldwide fallout, as water. Volatile organic compounds were near well as in effluents from Hanford Site facilities. or below the detection limits for most samples. Uranium occurs naturally in the environment in 27 Scientists sample and analyze sediment from the Columbia Water samples were collected from 10 Columbia River River for radiological and chemical contaminants. In 2001, shoreline spring areas along the Hanford Site in 2001. samples of Columbia River surface sediment were collected Hanford-origin contaminants continued to be detected in water above McNary Dam, from the Priest Rapids pool, and along from riverbank springs along the Hanford Reach. the Hanford Reach.

All radiological contaminant concentrations Total uranium concentrations exceeded the measured in riverbank springs in 2001 were EPA drinking water standard in the 300 Area. less than the DOE derived concentration guides. The gross alpha concentration exceeded the However, the spring near well 199-N-8T that ambient surface-water quality criteria level in has historically exceeded the DOE derived riverbank spring water at the 300 Area, which concentration guide for strontium-90 only had is consistent with the elevated uranium levels. observed flow during one (1997) sampling All other radionuclide concentrations in 300 attempt in the last 6 years; thus, an alternative Area spring water were less than the state spring was sampled in the 100-N Area. ambient surface-water quality criteria levels. Tritium concentrations in water samples Gross beta concentrations in riverbank collected in 2001 from riverbank springs at the spring water at the 100-B Area, 100-H Area, Hanford town site exceeded the state ambient Hanford town site, and 300 Area were elevated surface-water quality criteria level of 20,000 compared to other riverbank spring water picocuries per liter. The maximum tritium locations. Several of the radionuclides show concentration in riverbank spring water collected what appear to be increasing trends since 1995; in 2001 at the 100-N Area was 17,000 picocuries however, radionuclide concentrations measured per liter, which was 86% of the state ambient in the early 1990s were similar to the 2001 surface water criteria level. At the 300 Area, the concentrations. Annual fluctuations in these maximum tritium level was 12,000 picocuries values may reflect the influence of bank storage per liter, which was 60% of the criteria. The during the sampling period. strontium-90 concentration in riverbank spring Most metal concentrations measured in water was greater than the criteria level at the water from riverbank springs located on the 100-H Area location. Hanford shoreline in 1999 through 2001 were

28 below Washington State ambient surface-water acute toxicity levels. However, concentrations of chromium in the 100-B, 100-D, 100-F, 100-H, 100-K, 100-N, and 300 Areas spring water were above the state ambient surface water chronic toxicity levels. Arsenic concentrations in water from riverbank spring water were well below the applicable state ambient surface-water chronic toxicity levels, but concentrations in all samples exceeded the federal limit for the protection of human health for the consumption of drinking water. Nitrate concentrations at all locations were below the EPA drinking water standard. Riverbank Spring Sediment In 2001, water samples were collected from an irrigation canal in Sampling of sediment from riverbank Franklin County and an irrigation water supply on the Benton springs began in 1993 at the Hanford town site County shoreline. and the 300 Area. Sampling of the riverbank springs in the 100-B, 100-F, and 100-K Areas began in 1995. Substrates at all other riverbank Onsite Pond Water spring sampling locations consist of predomi- Water was collected from two onsite ponds nantly large cobble and are unsuitable for located near operational areas in 2001. Although sample collection. the ponds are inaccessible to the public and, In 2001, sediment samples were collected therefore, did not constitute a direct offsite at riverbank springs in the 100-B, 100-F, and environmental impact during 2001, they were 300 Areas. There was no sediment available for accessible to migratory waterfowl and other sampling at the 100-K and 100-N Area loca- animals, creating a potential biological pathway tions. In 2001, radionuclide concentrations in for the dispersion of contaminants. riverbank spring sediment were similar to With the exceptions of uranium-234 and those observed in river sediment. uranium-238 in water samples from West Lake, Detectable amounts of most metals were radionuclide concentrations in onsite pond found in all river sediment samples in 2001. water were less than the DOE derived concen- Maximum and median concentrations of most tration guides. The median gross alpha and metals were higher for sediment collected at total uranium concentrations in West Lake Priest Rapids Dam. exceeded ambient surface-water quality criteria. Concentrations of most radionuclides in water The concentrations of cadmium, chromium, collected from onsite ponds in 2001 were simi- lead, nickel, thallium, and zinc had the largest lar to those observed in the past. differences between locations. Metal concentrations in riverbank spring Irrigation Water sediment samples in 2001 were similar to During 2001, water samples were collected concentrations in Hanford Reach sediment from an irrigation canal located across the samples. Columbia River and downstream from the

29 Samples of cabbage, beets, tomatoes and potatoes were obtained Locally produced red and white wines (2001 vintage grapes) during the summer from gardens and farms located within were analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and tritium. selected sampling areas. Concord grapes were collected during the fall harvest.

Hanford Site at Riverview and from an irrigation The water sample from the Benton County water supply on the Benton County shoreline irrigation pumping station was analyzed for the near the southern boundary of the site. As a same analytes as the Riverview irrigation canal result of public concerns about the potential water, except for tritium. All radionuclide for Hanford-associated contaminants in offsite concentrations were below both DOE derived water, sampling was conducted to document concentration guides and state ambient surface- the levels of radionuclides in water used by water quality criteria levels and were similar to the public for irrigation. Columbia River concentrations. Water in the Riverview irrigation canal also Hanford Site Drinking Water was sampled three times in 2001 during the irrigation season. Unfiltered samples of the canal The quality of drinking water at the Hanford water were analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, Site is monitored by routinely collecting and gamma emitters, tritium, strontium-90, and analyzing drinking water samples and comparing uranium-234, -235, and -238. In 2001, radionuclide the resulting analytical data with established concentrations measured in this canal’s water drinking water standards and guidelines. were at the same levels detected in Columbia In 2001, samples were collected from four River water. All radionuclide concentrations locations on the site. All DOE-owned drinking were below the DOE derived concentration water systems on the Hanford Site were in guides and state ambient surface-water quality compliance with Washington State and EPA criteria levels. The strontium-90 levels in the ir- annual average radiological drinking water rigation water during 2001 were similar to standards in 2001, and results were similar to those reported for the Columbia River at Priest those observed in recent years. Rapids Dam and the Richland Pumphouse.

30 Food and Farm Products

Food products, including milk, vegetables, fruits, and wine, were collected routinely in 2001 at several locations surrounding the Hanford Site. Samples of alfalfa also were collected at selected locations. Routine samples were collected primarily from locations in the prevailing downwind directions where airborne effluents or fugitive dust from the Hanford Site could be deposited. Samples were collected also in generally upwind directions and at locations somewhat distant from the site to provide information on reference radiation levels in food. Routine food and farm product sampling determines the potential influence of Hanford Site releases in two ways: Milk samples were collected from seven dairies around the Hanford Site and analyzed for contaminants. Levels of iodine-129 • through the comparison of results from in milk collected at downwind locations have remained downwind locations to those from generally upwind or distant locations relatively stable for the last 5 years. • through the comparison of results from locations irrigated with Columbia River water withdrawn downstream from the Hanford Site to results from locations irrigated with water from other sources. in milk collected at downwind locations have remained relatively stable for the last 5 years Gamma scans (cobalt-60, cesium-137, and and were slightly higher than levels measured other radionuclides) and strontium-90 analyses upwind in Sunnyside. Strontium-90 was were performed for nearly all products. Milk detected in 2 of 12 milk samples analyzed in was analyzed for iodine-129 and tritium; wine 2001, and the results were close to the analytical also was analyzed for tritium. detection limit. Tritium concentrations in milk Samples collected and analyzed in 2001 in- samples were believed to be influenced by the cluded milk, vegetables, fruit, wine, and alfalfa. source of water used by the dairies. Tritium levels were low in all samples but were higher Strontium-90 was detected in one of three in the Sagemoor area compared to milk from leafy vegetable samples collected for 2001. The both the Wahluke and Sunnyside areas. result was similar to results seen in previous years. There were no gamma-emitting radionu- Tritium levels in all red and white wines clides detected in vegetable samples. were low, with concentrations in Yakima Valley wines lower when compared to concentrations Strontium-90 and other man-made gamma- in Columbia Basin wines. emitting radionuclides were not detected in grapes in 2001. Measurable levels of cesium-137 Measurable levels of cesium-137 and other were reported slightly above the detection limit manmade gamma-emitting radionuclides were in samples from the Riverview area. not detected in alfalfa in 2001. Strontium-90 was found above the detection limit in two of Iodine-129, strontium-90, and tritium were four samples, but levels were consistent with measured in milk samples. Levels of iodine-129 those seen in past years.

31 Fish and Wildlife

Contaminants in fish and wildlife that In 2001, muscle samples were analyzed for inhabit the Columbia River and Hanford Site cesium-137 and other gamma-emitting radionu- are monitored for several reasons. Wildlife clides. Cesium-137 results were below the have access to areas of the site containing analytical detection limit in all seven whitefish radioactive or chemical contamination, and fish muscle samples collected in 2001. These results can be exposed to contamination entering the are consistent with results from samples analyzed river along the shoreline. and reported from 1995 through 2000 and sup- Fish and some wildlife species exposed to port results reported throughout the 1990s that Hanford contaminants might be harvested for indicate a gradual decline in cesium-137 levels food and may potentially contribute to offsite in whitefish. public exposure. However, the amount of Strontium-90 was only found in the two radiological contamination measured in fish whitefish carcass samples analyzed in 2001 and and wildlife samples is well below levels known both were from the reference site. Levels of to cause adverse health effects. strontium-90 in carcass tissues collected from In addition, detection of contaminants in the 100-N to 100-D Areas in 2001 were consis- wildlife may indicate that wildlife are entering tent with levels observed in samples collected contaminated areas (burrowing in waste burial over the preceding 5 years. grounds) or that materials are moving out of Strontium-90 concentrations in carcass contaminated areas (through blowing dust or tissue would need to exceed 600 picocuries food-chain transport). Consequently, fish and per gram wet weight to be near the current wildlife samples are collected at selected DOE dose limit. locations annually. Goose Samples Fish Samples Ten goose samples were collected from The amounts of radiological contamination the Hanford Reach and one from the reference measured in fish samples are well below levels location near Vantage, Washington, in 2001. that are known to cause adverse biological Radionuclide levels found in these samples effects and contribute only a small proportion were compared to levels in samples collected of the radiation dose to the maximally exposed onsite in 1995, 1997, and 1999. individual. However, monitoring fish and other organisms for uptake and exposure to radionu- Cesium-137 was not detected in any goose clides at both nearby and distant locations muscle samples collected from the Hanford Site. continues to be important to track the extent The concentration in the sample obtained from ± and long-term trends of contamination in the the reference site in 2001 was reported to be 0.15 Columbia River environment. 0.02 picocuries per gram wet weight. The number of results reported at or below the analytical de- In 2001, five whitefish were collected from tection limit in 2001 was similar to the number the Columbia River near the 100-N Area, and reported for 28 goose samples collected from the two whitefish were obtained from a reference Hanford Reach between 1995 and 2000. The 2001 site near Orofino, Idaho. Fillets and the eviscer- levels were consistent with levels reported for ated remains (carcass) of fish were analyzed other waterfowl collected on the Hanford Site for a variety radiological contaminants, and and suggest that resident geese do not accumu- results from the nearby and distant locations late measurable amounts of cesium along the were compared. Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. 32 Ten goose samples were collected from the Hanford Reach and Rabbits are good indicators of regional radioactive contamina- one was collected from the reference location near Vantage, tion because they have small home ranges, occupy burrows, Washington, in 2001. and can enter fenced, restricted areas.

Strontium-90 concentrations found in goose In 2001, muscle and bone samples of cotton- bones were similar between the two areas tail rabbits were collected from near the 100-N sampled on the Hanford Site in 2001 and the Area. Reference samples of rabbits were collected reference site. Median and maximum results near Boardman, Oregon, in 1990. reported from Hanford goose samples in 2001 Cesium-137 concentrations in muscle samples were higher than any reported from 1995 through from four rabbits collected were all below the 2000, but were similar to results from reference analytical detection limit. These results are similar samples obtained in 1995, 1999, and 2001. to those seen from a reference location sampled in While the apparent increase in strontium-90 1990 and do not indicate elevated exposures from concentrations in Hanford Site goose samples Hanford-derived sources. obtained in 2001 is noteworthy, the strontium-90 Strontium-90 concentrations in the bones concentration in bone would need to exceed 60 of four rabbits were all above the analytical picocuries per gram wet weight to be near the detection limit. Three of the four sample results proposed DOE dose limit of 0.1 rad/day for were reported near the analytical detection terrestrial organisms. limit. Results from animals collected on the site Rabbit Samples suggest onsite exposure to low levels of strontium-90 around the 100-N and 200 Areas. Rabbits are good indicators of regional Although low sample sizes are available to in- radioactive contamination because they have terpret the long-term trends, major changes in relatively small home ranges, occupy burrows, strontium-90 within rabbit bone tissues are not and can enter fenced-restricted areas. However, apparent over the past decade. Strontium-90 because of the cyclic-patterns of the populations concentrations in bone tissues would need to over time, sampling rabbits can be very difficult exceed 60 picocuries per gram wet weight to be when numbers are low. near the proposed DOE dose limit.

33 Soil and Vegetation Surveillance

Soil surveillance provides information on long-term contamination trends and baseline environmental radionuclide concentrations at undisturbed locations. Surveillance of perennial vegetation provides information on atmospheric deposition of radioactive materials in uncultivated areas and at onsite locations adjacent to potential sources of manmade radioactivity. Accordingly, radionuclide concentrations in soil and perennial vegetation provide a baseline against which unplanned releases can be compared. Soil and perennial vegetation samples have In 2001, soil samples were collected onsite, at the Fitzner/ been collected on and around the Hanford Site Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve on the northeastern side of Rattlesnake Mountain, at the site perimeter, and at distant for more than 50 years. Consequently, a large locations. database exists that thoroughly documents onsite and offsite levels of manmade radionu- been no appreciable increase in radionuclide clides in soil and perennial vegetation at concentrations in onsite soil in the last several specific locations. years. There were no increases in soil concen- Routine radiological surveillance of soil and trations of any measured radionuclide at distant vegetation on and around Hanford was last or perimeter locations. conducted in 1998. In 2001, 13 vegetation The onsite average soil concentrations in samples and 38 soil samples were collected. 2001 were higher than at the site perimeter or Soil Samples distant locations for the radionuclides measured. This was consistent with historical data and In 2001, soil samples were collected onsite, reflected the higher onsite soil concentrations at the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology associated with years of nuclear materials Reserve, at the site perimeter, and at distant production. locations. All samples were analyzed for Maximum soil concentrations of several gamma-emitting radionuclides, strontium-90, radionuclides at various distance classes were uranium-234, -235, -238, and plutonium-238, higher in 2001 than in previous years. Maxi- -239/240. Selected samples were analyzed mum concentrations of strontium-90 and for americium-241. The 2001 results were uranium-238 on the site were higher in 2001 compared to results from 1993, 1994, and 1998. than maximums observed since 1993. In 2001, observed mean radionuclide At the site perimeter, the plutonium-239/240 concentrations in onsite soil samples analyzed maximum concentration was slightly higher than for plutonium isotopes, strontium-90, cesium-137, in recent years. Uranium-238 maximum concen- uranium-238, and americium-241 were at or trations at perimeter and distant locations were below their respective averages from 1993, also higher in 2001 than in the last 8 years, but the 1994, and 1998. This indicated that there has differences were not statistically significant.

34 Vegetation Samples

Vegetation samples were collected at 13 locations on and around the Hanford Site in 2001. Samples were organized into four distinct groups: 1) onsite, 2) perimeter, 3) Columbia River shoreline, and 4) distant upwind. Onsite vegation sampling locations were generally selected in areas around industrial development of the site. Downwind perimeter locations were Ringold, Byers Landing, Sagemoor, and Riverview. Perennial vegetation samples consisted of the current year’s growth of leaves, stems, and new branches collected from sagebrush and rabbitbrush. Shoreline vegetation samples were usually taken from a predominant species at Vegetation samples were collected at 13 locations on and the sampling location. around the Hanford Site in 2001. Samples were organized into four distinct groups: 1) onsite, 2) perimeter, 3) Columbia River Vegetation sampling results in 2001 shoreline, and 4) distant upwind. Perennial vegetation samples generally confirmed observations from past consisted of the current year’s growth of leaves, stems, and new sampling efforts. Strontium-90, cesium-137, branches collected from sagebrush and rabbitbrush. plutonium-238, and uranium-238 concentrations were all below nominal detection limits at distant and shoreline locations, as were cesium-137 and strontium-90 concentrations at perimeter locations. Uranium-238 was detected in three of four perimeter samples collected. Concentrations of plutonium-238 and uranium-238 in onsite samples were all less than the detection limit. Cesium-137 and strontium-90 were each measured in one sample, and results were similar to those from past years. The percentage of samples collected in 2001 with measurable plutonium-239/240 concentrations increased relative to those samples collected in 1993, 1994, and 1998. Between 1993 and 1998, >40% of the vegetation samples analyzed had detectable concentrations of plutonium-239/240. Onsite vegetation sampling locations were generally selected in In 2001, plutonium-239/240 was detected in areas around industrial development of the site. Downwind all vegetation samples collected and analyzed. perimeter locations were Ringold, Byers Landing, Sagemoor, and Riverview. These areas lie generally east and southeast of The 2001 average concentrations for all distance the site. They are expected to be in areas of highest offsite classes increased relative to the average concen- accumulation of contaminants from site stack emissions. tration measured during the last 8 years.

35 External Radiation and Radiological Surveys

External Radiation were situated at four community-operated monitoring stations. Real-time exposure rate External radiation also is surveyed on the data were displayed at each station to provide Hanford Site. External radiation is defined as information to the public and to serve as an radiation originating from a source external to educational tool for the teachers who manage the body. External radiation consists of a natural the stations. component and a manmade component, which The highest dose rates measured in 2001 includes radionuclides generated for or from were along the shoreline near the 100-N Area. nuclear medicine, power, research, waste These higher rates measured along the 100-N management, and consumer products containing Area shoreline have been attributed to past nuclear materials (such as home smoke detectors). waste management practices in that area (i.e., Environmental radiation fields may be disposal of liquid wastes to trenches located influenced by the presence of radionuclides near the river shoreline). deposited as worldwide fallout from atmospheric In 2001, the maximum annual shoreline testing of nuclear weapons or those produced dose rate was 129 millirems, which was not and released to the environment during the significantly different from the maximum production or use of nuclear fuel. During any measured in 2000, but was significantly lower year, external radiation levels can vary from than the 5-year maximum of 173 millirems per 15% to 25% at any location because of changes year. However, exposure levels of this in soil moisture and snow cover. magnitude did not significantly add to dose In 2001, environmental external radiation rates for the public or Hanford workers. exposure rates were measured by placing thermoluminescent dosimeters and pressurized Radiological Surveys ionization chambers at selected locations on Radiological surveys were performed at and off the Hanford Site. External radiation and selected Columbia River shoreline locations. surface contamination surveys at specified loca- The surveys showed that radiation levels were tions were performed with portable radiation comparable to levels observed at the same loca- survey instruments. tions in previous years. The highest dose rate was Thermoluminescent dosimeters were posi- measured in winter along the 100-N shoreline. tioned 1 meter (3.28 feet) above the ground at Gamma radiation levels in air were 29 locations on the site; 21 distant, community, monitored in 2001 at four community-operated and perimeter locations; and 26 locations along air monitoring stations. These stations were the Benton County shore of the Columbia River located in Richland, north Franklin County, from Vernita to the mouth of the Yakima River. Basin City, and Toppenish. Ground contamination surveys were also conducted quarterly at 13 shoreline locations. Exposure rates measured at four offsite locations with pressurized ionization chambers These measurements were made to esti- were consistently between 7.4 and 8.9 mate radiation exposure levels attributed to microroentgens per hour near Hanford and 7.9 sources on the Hanford Site, estimate levels and 8.7 microroentgens per hour in Toppenish, along the Hanford Reach shoreline, and help a distant community location. assess exposure to onsite personnel and offsite populations. Pressurized ionization chambers

36 Groundwater Monitoring

In 2001, samples were collected from 735 monitoring wells to determine the distribution and movement of existing radiological and chemical constituents in Hanford Site groundwater and identify and characterize potential and emerging groundwater contamination problems. Samples were analyzed for ~40 different radiological constituents and ~290 different chemical constituents. The total area of groundwater contaminant plumes with concentrations exceeding drinking water standards was estimated to be ~208 square kilometers (80 square miles) in 2001. This area, which is a decrease of ~1% compared Groundwater monitoring personnel collect samples from across to 2000, occupies ~14% of the total area of the the Hanford Site. In 2001, samples were collected from 735 Hanford Site. Most of the contaminant plume monitoring wells to determine the distribution and movement area, represented by tritium, lies southeast of the of existing radiological and chemical constituents in Hanford 200-East Area extending to the Columbia River. Site groundwater and identify and characterize potential and emerging groundwater contamination problems. The most widespread contaminants are tritium, iodine-129, technetium-99, uranium, strontium-90, carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, and trichloroethene. Plumes of carbon-14, cesium-137, cobalt-60, and plutonium occur in isolated areas in the 100 and 200 Areas. Radioactive Contaminants

Tritium is one of the most widespread contaminants in groundwater across the Hanford Site and exceeded the 20,000-picocuries per liter drinking water standard in portions of the 100, 200, 400, and 600 Areas. Of these areas, tritium exceeded the 2-million-picocuries per liter DOE derived concentration guide in portions of the 200 and 600 Areas. The highest tritium concentration measured at the Hanford Site in 2001 was 5.29 million picocuries per liter near the 618-11 burial Scientists sample wells annually to monitor groundwater ground, located near the Energy Northwest beneath the Hanford Site. In 2001, samples were analyzed for (the former Washington Public Power Supply ~40 different radiological constituents and ~290 different System) site. Tritium levels on the site are chemical constituents. The most widespread contaminants are expected to decrease because of dispersion and tritium, iodine-129, technetium-99, uranium, strontium-90, radioactive decay. carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, and trichloroethene. 37 Pump-and-treat systems were constructed in the 100-D, 100-H, In 2001, groundwater pump-and-treat systems processed and 100-K Areas in the late 1990s. The systems are designed to thousands of kilograms (millions of liters) of contaminated remove contaminants from groundwater. Treated water is groundwater. Contaminants removed included hexavalent reinjected into the ground. chromium, strontium-90, carbon tetrachloride, nitrate, technetium-99, and uranium.

No groundwater samples showed iodine-129 where uranium levels were 3,110 micrograms concentrations above the 500-picocuries per per liter and exceeded the DOE derived liter DOE derived concentration guide in 2001. concentration guide. However, the iodine-129 plume at levels exceeding In 2001, strontium-90 concentrations greater the drinking water standard (1 picocurie per than the 8-picocuries per liter drinking water liter) is extensive in the 200 and 600 Areas. At standard were found in one or more wells in the Hanford Site, the highest level of iodine-129 the 100 and 200 Areas. Levels of strontium-90 detected in 2001 was 22.4 picocuries per liter exceeded the 1,000-picocuries per liter DOE de- near the T, TX, and TY tank farms in the rived concentration guide in the 100-K, 100-N, 200-West Area. and 200-East Areas. Technetium-99, which has a half-life of The 100-N Area had the widest distribution 210,000 years, was found at concentrations of strontium-90 detected at the Hanford Site greater than the 900-picocuries per liter drinking during 2001. The maximum concentration water standard in the 200-East and 200-West detected was 12,000 picocuries per liter in the Areas. The highest level measured on the Han- 200-East Area. ford Site in 2001 was 81,500 picocuries per liter near the SX tank farm in the 200-West Area. Carbon-14 concentrations occur in the 100-K Area and exceed the 2,000-picocuries Total uranium has been detected at concen- per liter drinking water standard in two trations greater than the drinking water standard small plumes near the K-East and K-West in portions of the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. The Reactors. The maximum concentration in highest levels detected at the Hanford Site in 2001 was 12,900 picocuries per liter near a 2001 were in the 200-West Area near U Plant, former K-East Reactor waste disposal crib.

38 Cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 Plutonium was released to the soil years, was detected in three wells located near column in the past at several locations in the inactive 216-B-5 injection well in the 200- both the 200-West and 200-East Areas. The East Area. The maximum cesium-137 concen- half-lives of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 tration in 2001 was 1,910 picocuries per liter, are 24,000 and 6,500 years, respectively. The which is greater than the interim drinking only location where plutonium isotopes were water standard. Cesium-137 appears to be detected in groundwater on the Hanford Site restricted to the immediate vicinity of the was near the inactive 216-B-5 injection well former injection well. in the 200-East Area. Plutonium levels near the injection well have changed significantly since Cobalt-60 was detected in the northwestern monitoring for plutonium began in the 1980s. part of the 200-East Area. The maximum concentration measured in 2001 was 77.1 picocuries The maximum plutonium-239/240 per liter at the BY cribs. This concentration was concentration near this injection well during below the 100-picocuries per liter drinking 2001 was 63 picocuries per liter, which exceeds water standard and the 5,000-picocuries per the 30-picocuries per liter DOE derived concen- liter DOE derived concentration guide. tration guide.

Summary of Pump-and-Treat Systems and a Soil-Vapor Extraction System

Mass Removed Mass Removed Startup (Groundwater Processed) (Groundwater Processed) Location Date Contaminant in 2001 Since Startup

Groundwater Pump-and-Treat Systems

100-D Area 1997 Hexavalent chromium 20.5 kilograms 101.9 kilograms (96.7 million liters) (550 million liters)

100-H Area 1997 Hexavalent chromium 5.8 kilograms 27.5 kilograms (125.9 million liters) (631.3 million liters)

100-K Area 1997 Hexavalent chromium 36.2 kilograms 148.3 kilograms (338.8 million liters) (1.24 billion liters)

100-N Area 1995 Strontium-90 0.18 curies 1.1 curies (114.7 million liters) (666.5 million liters)

200-West Area 1994 Carbon tetrachloride 1,177 kilograms 6,084 kilograms (200-ZP-1) (326 million liters) (1.67 billion liters) Operable Unit

200-West Area 1994 Carbon tetrachloride 2.41 kilograms 20.6 kilograms (200-UP-1) (98.2 million liters) (554.5 million liters) Operable Unit

1994 Nitrate 3,540 kilograms 20,487 kilograms (98.2 million liters) (554.5 million liters)

1994 Technetium-99 8.3 grams 78.56 grams (98.2 million liters) (554.5 million liters)

1994 Uranium 15.5 kilograms 136.7 kilograms (98.2 million liters) (554.5 million liters)

Soil-Vapor Extraction

200-West Area 1992 Carbon tetrachloride 710 kilograms 77,170 kilograms

39 H, and 100-K Areas. Chemical The purpose of the pump-and-treat Contaminants systems is to prevent discharge of hexavalent Several non-radioac- chromium into the tive chemicals regulated Columbia River at con- by EPA and Washing- centrations exceeding ton State also were 11 micrograms per liter, present in Hanford Site which is EPA’s stan- groundwater. These dard for protection of were carbon tetrachlo- freshwater aquatic life. ride, chloroform, chro- The presence of chromium in groundwater beneath the 100-H mium, cyanide, Area is a concern because the adjacent riverbed is used by Carbon tetrachloride fluoride, nitrate, salmon for spawning. A pump-and-treat system currently is contamination occurs tetrachloroethene, cis- operating to reduce the rate at which chromium enters the above the 5-milligrams 1,2-dichloroethene, and Columbia River. per liter drinking water trichloroethene. standard in much of the 200-West Area and represents one of the most Of these chemicals, nitrate, chromium, and significant contaminant plumes at the Hanford carbon tetrachloride were the most widely Site. The plume, which covers an area of more distributed in Hanford Site groundwater. than 11 square kilometers (4 square miles), Nitrate is the most widespread chemical extends past the 200-West Area boundary into contaminant in Hanford Site groundwater the 600 Area. because of its mobility in groundwater and Carbon tetrachloride has been found to the large volumes of waste containing nitrate have a high degree of mobility in groundwater. discharged to the ground. However, the areas The highest concentration measured in 2001 affected by levels greater than the drinking was 7,400 micrograms per liter near the Pluto- water standard are small. nium Finishing Plant in the 200-West Area. In 2001, nitrate was measured at concentra- The highest chloroform concentrations tions greater than the drinking water standard were measured in the vicinity of the Plutonium (45 milligrams per liter) in portions of the 100, Finishing Plant in the 200-West Area, where the 200, 300, 600, and former 1100 Areas. The maxi- maximum level was 160 micrograms per liter mum nitrate concentration measured on the in early 2001. These concentrations are above Hanford Site in 2001 was 1,300 milligrams per the 100-micrograms per liter drinking water liter in the 200-West Area. standard. Chromium was detected above the drinking In 2001, trichloroethene was detected at lev- water standard in 2001 at the 100-D, 100-H, 100- els greater than the 5-micrograms per liter K, 100-N, 200-East, and 200-West Areas. The drinking water standard in several wells in the maximum detected concentration was 5,660 mi- 100, 200, and 600 Areas. crograms per liter in the 100-D Area. The most widespread area of contamination In the hexavalent form, chromium is very occurred in the 200-West Area. The highest mobile in groundwater. Groundwater pump- concentration measured in 2001 was 21 micro- and-treat systems continued to operate in 2001 grams per liter in a well northeast of the to reduce the amount of hexavalent chromium Plutonium Finishing Plant. entering the Columbia River at the 100-D, 100-

40 The highest levels of cyanide were detected liter. Secondary standards are based primarily in samples collected from wells in the north- on aesthetic, rather than health, considerations. western part of the 200-East Area. The maxi- Fluoride was detected above the primary drink- mum concentration measured in 2001 was 423 ing water standard in two monitoring wells at micrograms per liter, which is above the 200 the T tank farm in the 200-West Area in 2001. micrograms per liter drinking water standard. The maximum fluoride concentration was 4.9 micrograms per liter on the east side of T tank At this time, fluoride has a primary drink- farm. A few other wells near T tank farm ing water standard of 4 micrograms per liter showed concentrations above the secondary and a secondary standard of 2 micrograms per standard. Vadose Zone Monitoring and Characterization

The vadose zone is defined as the area between the ground surface and the water table. This subsurface zone also is referred to as the unsaturated zone or the zone of aeration. The vadose zone functions as a transport pathway or storage area for water and other materials located between the soil surface and the groundwater aquifers. Historically, the vadose zone at industrial- ized and waste disposal areas at the Hanford Site has been contaminated with large amounts of radioactive and non-radioactive materials through the intentional and unintentional discharge of liquid waste to the soil column, the burial of contaminated solid waste, and the airborne contaminants deposited on the ground. Depending on such factors as the makeup of the soil, the geology of the area, the nature of the waste, and the amount of water or other flu- ids available to mobilize the contaminant, contaminants can move downward and laterally through the soil column, can be chemically This photo shows a cone penetrometer being lowered into place bound to soil particles (and immobilized), or at the Hanford Site to push sensors and probes into the soil to can be contained by geologic formations. gather information about the vadose zone. Radioactive and hazardous waste in the soil column from past intentional liquid waste disposal, unplanned leaks, solid waste burial dose zone monitoring, soil-vapor monitoring, grounds, and underground tanks at the Han- and vadose zone remediation were conducted ford Site are potential sources of continuing and in fiscal year 2001 to better understand the dis- future vadose zone and groundwater contami- tribution and mechanisms that control the nation. Subsurface source characterization, va- movement of subsurface contamination.

41 Vadose Zone Vadose Zone Characterization Monitoring

Vadose zone charac- Vadose zone moni- terization activities at toring occurred at four single-shell tank farms major areas on the Han- in fiscal year 2001 were ford Site in 2001. concentrated at the B, Leachate and soil gas BX, and BY tank farms monitoring continued in the 200-East Area at the Environmental and the S and SX tank Restoration Disposal farms in the 200-West Facility and the Solid Area. Scientists collected data during a soil gas survey performed Waste Landfill. Also, during summer 2001. The survey helped determine the soil gas monitoring at Two new boreholes direction and extent of tritium groundwater contamination the carbon tetrachloride were drilled at Waste downgradient of the 618-11 burial ground. Results from this expedited-response- Management Area B-BX- survey were used to define the locations for groundwater action site continued BY through subsurface sampling and monitoring well installation. during fiscal year 2001. contaminant plumes. A third borehole was drilled immediately outside Soil gas is monitored quarterly to deter- the tank farms to obtain uncontaminated core for mine concentrations of carbon dioxide, comparison with the contaminated material methane, oxygen, and several key volatile obtained in the tank farms. compounds. No contaminants of concern were discovered above reporting limits Interim measures were completed at the during the 2000/2001 sampling period. single-shell tank farms in 2001 to minimize the subsurface movement of contaminants by During the year, borehole geophysical preventing surface water from encroaching monitoring of dry wells in single-shell tank onto the tank farms. farms to detect leaks and the migration of subsurface contaminants continued. Although these efforts are not strictly characterization efforts, they are important and In addition to these monitoring activities, related because they help minimize the spread several vadose zone monitoring instruments of contamination beyond existing contaminated were installed at one borehole at Waste regions. During 2001, baseline spectral gamma Management Area B-BX-BY tank farms on the logging of selected wells at past-practice, liquid Hanford Site. These instruments will provide waste disposal facilities began. The results will continuous soil column monitoring in that be a baseline against which future monitoring tank farm. results can be compared. Soil-vapor extraction is being used to Vadose zone characterization activities remove carbon tetrachloride from the vadose were completed in the 100-H Area to support zone in the 200-West Area. Three soil-vapor remediation in the reactor areas. Finally, char- extraction systems are in use. As of Septem- acterization activities were completed at two ber 2001, 77,169 kilograms (170,128 pounds) burial grounds in the 600 Area, north of the of carbon tetrachloride had been removed city of Richland. The results of these activities from the vadose zone since extraction opera- provide a clearer picture of the distribution of tions started in 1991. subsurface contaminants in this area. 42 Technical Studies in the Vadose Zone

Technical studies in the vadose zone were designed to help develop new, innovative methods for cleanup and monitoring at the Hanford Site. These studies include the demonstration and testing of several geophysical methods to monitor and characterize the soil column and use of chemical parameters to distinguish various sources of subsurface waste and subsurface moisture to understand transport processes in the vadose zone. A computer model is being developed to predict the migration of subsurface contaminants based on measured infiltration rates. This is a photograph of the clastic dike exposed in the Army Infiltration experiments also are being Loop Road excavation on the Hanford Site. Each grid shown in conducted at a clastic dike site to determine the front of the lowest exposed face is 2 meters (6.5 feet) wide the hydrologic properties of clastic dikes. by 1 meter (3.28) feet high. The blue tent in the background covers an infiltration test site. A 3-year study of clastic dikes and their influence on vertical movement of moisture and contaminants in the vadose zone began in fiscal year 2000 and continued in 2001. The goal is to describe the geometric and hydrologic properties of clastic dikes and ex- trapolate those properties to the vadose zone beneath waste storage and disposal facilities. Clastic dikes are common sedimentary structures in the vadose zone at the Hanford Site. The dikes are vertical to subvertical structures that are often contorted and irregular. They crosscut the normal subhorizontal sand and silt beds of the Hanford formation. Previous investigators have proposed that the dikes may provide a preferential path for contaminated water leaking from waste tanks to move through the thick unsaturated zone to the unconfined aquifer. However, there is insuf- ficient evidence to determine if that speculation Scientists used a geophysical technique known as spectral is accurate. One goal of this study is to provide gamma logging to determine whether contaminants are moving through the soil. A small-diameter spectral gamma information that can be used to evaluate that logging tool has been demonstrated in the 100 Areas of the speculation. Hanford Site.

43 Quality Assurance

Quality assurance and quality control practices are incorporated into all aspects of the Hanford Site environmental monitoring and surveillance programs. Comprehensive quality assurance programs are conducted to assure data quality. The programs are implemented through quality assurance plans designed to meet requirements of the American National Standards Institute/ American Society of Mechanical Engineers and DOE Orders. Quality assurance plans are maintained for all activities, and auditors verify conformance. Quality control methods include, but are not limited to, replicate sampling and analysis, analysis of field blanks and blind reference standards, participation in interlaboratory cross-check studies, and splitting samples with other laboratories. Sample collections Environmental samples are analyzed by trained staff according and laboratory analyses are conducted using to approved and documented procedures. documented and approved procedures. When sample results are received, they are screened for anomalous values by comparing them to recent results and historical data. Ana- lytical laboratory performance on the submitted double-blind samples, the EPA Laboratory Intercomparison Studies Program, and the national DOE Quality Assessment Program indicated that laboratory performance in 2001 was adequate overall, was excellent in some areas, and needed improvement in others. Quality assurance/quality control for environmental monitoring and surveillance programs include procedures and protocols to: • document instrument calibrations • conduct program-specific activities in the field • maintain groundwater wells to assure representative samples are collected • avoid cross-contamination by using Comprehensive quality assurance programs are maintained to dedicated well sampling pumps. assure the quality of data collected.

44 Swainson’s hawks are one bird species monitored on the Hanford Site. They are summer residents of the site. Swaison’s Environmental hawks are a state-monitored species in Washington State. Research and Monitoring

At the Hanford Site, a variety of environmental and cultural resource activities are performed to comply with laws and regulations, enhance environmental quality, and monitor the impact of environmental pollutants from site operations. Meteorological response is provided around the clock on the site in the event of a suspected or actual release of radioactive or hazardous material to the atmosphere. Comprehensive climatological data records are maintained to use in environmental impact assessment and dose reconstruction. Scientists monitor the entire Hanford ecosystem and specific plant and animal species and habitats to assess the status of threatened, endangered, or commercially/recreationally important species and habitats and to identify impacts of Hanford Site operations on flora and fauna. Cultural resources on the site also are identified and evaluated to determine impacts from site operations. Historic buildings and structures are evaluated for their historic significance. This section summarizes activities conducted in 2001 to monitor the site’s climatology and meteorology, assess the status of ecological monitoring and compliance, and monitor and manage cultural and historic resources.

45 Lightning strikes on the Hanford Site are monitored at the There were eight dust storms recorded at the Hanford Meteo- Hanford Meteorological Station. It is located on the 200 Areas rology Station during 2001. There have been an average of five plateau. dust storms per year from 1945 to 2001.

Climate and Meteorology

Meteorological measurements are taken to wind direction is from the northwest during all support Hanford Site emergency preparedness months. The secondary wind direction is from and response, site operations, and atmospheric the southwest. The average wind speed for 2001 dispersion calculations for dose assessments. was 3.4 meters per second (7.6 miles per hour). Hanford Site meteorologists provide weather The peak gust for the year was 31 meters per forecasting and maintenance and distribution second (69 miles per hour) on December 16. of climatological data. There were eight dust storms recorded at Forecasting is provided to help manage the Hanford Meteorology Station during 2001. weather-dependent operations. Climatological There have been an average of five dust storms data are provided to help assess the environ- per year at the station from 1945-2001. mental effects of site operations. Calendar year 2001 was slightly warmer than Local data to support the Hanford Meteo- normal, and precipitation was below normal. The rology Station operations are provided average temperature for 2001 was 12.4°C via the Hanford Meteorological Monitoring (54.3°F), which was above normal (12.0°C Network. This network consists of 30 remote [53.6°F]). Precipitation for 2001 totaled 16.9 monitoring stations that transmit data to the centimeters (6.6 inches), which was below Hanford Meteorology Station via radio normal (17.7 centimeters [6.98 inches]). Snow- telemetry every 15 minutes. fall for 2001 totaled 38.4 centimeters (15.1 The Hanford Meteorology Station is located inches) compared to an annual normal snowfall on the 200 Areas plateau where the prevailing of 39.1 centimeters (15.4 inches).

46 Ecosystem Monitoring and Ecological Compliance

Ecosystem monitoring and ecological compliance have multiple objectives that support completion of Hanford’s waste management and environmental restoration mission: • assuring Hanford Site operational compliance with laws and regulations including the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act • providing data for environmental impact and ecological risk assessments • providing maps and information useful for biological resource impact mitigation during facility expansion • supporting Hanford Site land-use planning • protecting natural resources within the DOE-operated portions of the Hanford Site including the DOE-managed portions of the Chinook salmon use the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River Hanford Reach National Monument as a spawning area in the fall. Surveys in 2001 indicated that • providing information useful to the tribes, the number of fall spawning fish in the Hanford Reach natural resource stakeholders, and the public on the status of some of Hanford’s increased from the 2000 level. most highly valued biological resources.

Ecosystem Monitoring Rocky Mountain Elk The Ecosystem Monitoring Project monitors Rocky Mountain elk did not inhabit the the status of plant and animal populations on Hanford Site when it was established in 1943. the Hanford Site, maintains biotic inventory Elk were first observed on the Fitzner/ data, and assists in implementing ecosystem Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve in 1972. management policies. Rare plant populations Since that time, the herd has grown and now and plant communities, spawning Columbia occupies portions of the Hanford Site, the U.S. River fall chinook salmon, elk, and mule deer Army’s Yakima Training Center, and private are monitored annually as part of the project. land along Rattlesnake Ridge. Fall Chinook Salmon At the end of 2001 hunting season, the herd size was estimated at 484 animals. In 2001, ~6,248 fall chinook salmon redds were observed in aerial surveys of the Hanford The Washington Department of Fish and Reach of the Columbia River, an increase of 741 Wildlife has primary responsibility for manage- from 2000 and ~80% of the 1996 and 1997 totals. ment of the elk herd and works cooperatively However, aerial surveys do not yield absolute with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which redd counts because visibility varies, depending has primary land management responsibility on water depth and other factors, and because for the Hanford Reach National Monument the number of redds in high-density locations land that encompasses much of the Rattlesnake cannot be counted accurately. Hills elk herd range.

47 Mule Deer

Since 1993, systematic roadside observations of mule deer have been conducted during the post-hunting periods (December through January). The surveys are conducted to monitor trends in age and sex ratios of mule deer, examine trends in their relative abundance on the Hanford Site, and monitor the frequency of testicular atrophy. In 2001, mule deer fawn survival was about 30 fawns per 100 does, which is similar to other deer populations found in the shrub-steppe environment. Plant Biodiversity Inventories

The Hanford Site contains biologically diverse shrub-steppe plant communities that Since 1993, systematic roadside observations of mule deer have have been protected from disturbance, except been conducted during the post-hunting periods (December for fire, over the past 55 years. This protection through January). The surveys are conducted to monitor trends has allowed plant species that have been in age and sex ratios of mule deer and examine trends in their displaced by agriculture and development relative abundance on the Hanford Site. Surveys of mule deer in other parts of the Columbia Basin to thrive help scientists evaluate the health of the mule deer population. at Hanford. More than 100 rare plant populations of 31 different taxa are found on the Hanford Site. In addition to rare plant populations, several areas on the Hanford Site are designated as special habitat types with regard to potential occurrence of plant species of concern listed by Washington State. Surveys in 2001 continued to indicate increases in the numbers of Piper’s daisy, a species of concern occurring in the 200 Areas. Populations of another species of concern occurring near the Columbia River, persistent sepal yellowcress, do not appear to have experienced significant recovery after declining as a result of the high Columbia River flow levels. Maps showing the extent and distribution of the plant communities on the Hanford Site were updated in 2001 to reflect the changes in Surveys in 2001 continued to indicate increases in the plant communities resulting from the wildfire numbers of Piper’s daisy (shown in the photo), a species of in June 2000 and incorporate recently mapped concern. Populations of another species of concern occurring near riparian areas. the Columbia River, persistent sepal yellowcress, do not appear to have experienced significant recovery.

48 At least 47 plant species on or near the Hanford Site are listed The long-billed curlew is a state monitor species in Washing- as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or watch list by the ton. The curlew is found on the site from early spring to mid- Washington Natural Heritage Program. summer.

Ecological Compliance These baseline surveys provide information about habitat types and species inventories and The policies of DOE’s Richland Operations abundance that can be used throughout the Office require that all projects having the poten- year to assess potential project impacts. At least tial to adversely affect biological resources have 47 plant species on or near the Hanford Site are an ecological compliance review performed be- listed as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or fore the project begins. This review assures that watch list by the Washington Natural Heritage DOE is in compliance with the Endangered Spe- Program. Three of these species are also listed cies Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. by the federal government as candidates for Ecological compliance reviews also assure protection under the Endangered Species Act. that other significant resources such as Wash- Examples of the baseline survey maps are ington State listed species of concern, wetlands, available at www.pnl.gov/ecology/ecosystem. and native shrub-steppe habitats are adequately A total of 109 ecological compliance reviews considered during the project planning process. were performed during 2001 in support of gen- Where effects are identified, mitigation action is eral Hanford activities. An additional 60 re- prescribed. Mitigation actions can include views were performed in support of environ- avoidance, minimization, rectification, or com- mental restoration activities. The total number pensation. of reviews prepared in 2001 (169) was similar to Since many projects occur during times of the the number performed in 2000. year when plants are not growing, and the plants In 2001, 64 reviews were performed in the 200 are difficult to identify or evaluate, each opera- Areas, 27 in the 300 Area, 26 in the 100 Areas, and tional area (200-East, 200-West, all the 100 Areas, 52 in other areas. They include the 400, 600, 700, and the 300 Area) is surveyed each spring. Richland north, and former 1100 Areas.

49 DOE is in the process of evaluating the feasibility of retaining K-West Reactor, a contributing property, was recommended for various historic structures on the Hanford Site, including the mitigation within the Hanford Site Manhattan Project and Hanford town site high school. Cold War Era Historic District.

exposed human remains, assure that violations Cultural Resources of federal laws were not present or ongoing, and monitor for violations of federal laws. The DOE Richland Operations Office established a cultural resource monitoring program During 2001, 150 cultural resource reviews in 1987. This program determines the impact of were requested and conducted on the Hanford DOE policies on cultural resources and safeguards Site to comply with Section 106 of the National them from adverse effects associated with Historic Preservation Act. natural processes or unauthorized excavation During 2001, the building mitigation project and collection that violate federal laws. continued to implement the Programmatic Monitoring conducted during 2001 focused Agreement for the Built Environment and the on Locke Island’s erosion, archaeological sites sitewide treatment plan. The final History of the with natural and visitor impacts, historic build- Plutonium Production Facilities at the Hanford Site ings and structures, and places with Native Historic District, 1943-1990 was published in American burials. Surveys in 2001 recorded July 2002. erosional losses of up to 1 meter (3.28 feet). Public involvement is an important compo- Eighty-six archaeological sites were moni- nent of a cultural resource management program. tored in 2001 to gather data associated with To accomplish this, DOE developed mechanisms recreational use, visitor impact, and/or natural that allowed the public access to cultural weathering processes. resources information and the ability to comment and make recommendations concerning Places with cemeteries or known human the management of cultural resources on the remains include locations that are sacred to Hanford Site. These mechanisms were woven local tribes. In 2001, all these places were moni- into draft public involvement procedures that tored to document baseline conditions, deter- include input provided by the public and mine whether wind or water erosion had Hanford Site staff over the last several years. 50 Tribal members assist DOE with cultural resource surveys, site form preparation, records management, and equipment use. Stakeholder and Tribal Involvement

Many entities have a role in DOE’s mission of environmental restoration, waste management, and protection of the Columbia River at the Hanford Site. Stakeholders include federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; environmental groups; regional communities and governments; and the public. Indian tribes and Nations also have a special and unique involvement with the Hanford Site and maintain a government-to-government relationship with DOE. Several federal, state, and local regulatory agencies are responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with applicable environmental regulations at the site. The Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council is another stakeholder. This council comprises federal trustees for Hanford natural resources, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Local Indian tribes also are members of the council as as are the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Energy. It facilitates coordination and cooperation of trustees in mitigating impacts to natural resources that result from either hazardous substances releases within the site or remediation of those releases.

51 The Role of Indian Tribes

The Hanford Site is located on land ceded to the United States government by the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in the Treaties of 1855. These tribes, as well as the Nez Perce Tribe, have treaty fishing rights on portions of the Columbia River. The Wanapum People are not a federally recognized tribe, but have historic ties to the Hanford Site as do the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, whose members are descendants of people who used the area now known as the Hanford Site. The Hanford Site’s environment supports a number of Native American foods and medi- cines and contains sacred places important to tribal cultures. The tribes hope to safely use In July 2000, the Wanapum People built a tule mat lodge at Priest these resources in the future and want to assure Rapids of the long green stems of tule, a wetland plant, harvested themselves that the Hanford environment is from the slow current marshes along the Columbia River. clean and healthy. American Indian Tribal governments have a The DOE American Indian and Alaska Na- special and unique legal and political relation- tive Tribal Government Policy guides DOE’s ship with the government of the United States, interactions with tribes for Hanford plans and defined by history, treaties, statutes, court deci- activities. sions, and the U.S. Constitution. In recognition of this relationship, DOE and each tribe interact Members of the Confederated Tribes of the and consult directly. Umatilla Indian Reservation, Yakama Nation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Wanapum People were Tribal government representatives from the actively involved in the cultural resources pro- Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the gram during 2001. Each tribe was involved in Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce deciding DOE’s cultural resource program Tribe participate in DOE-supported groups work scope, budget, and schedule. Monthly such as the State and Tribal Government Work- meetings on cultural resource issues provided a ing Group, the Hanford Natural Resources venue for the exchange of information between Trustee Council, the Hanford Site Groundwa- DOE, tribal staff members, and site contractors ter/Vadose Zone Integration Project, the Han- about projects and work on the Hanford Site. ford Cultural Resources Program. They also review and comment on draft documents. During 2001, one member of the Wanapum Both the Wanapum People and the Confeder- People assisted with cultural resource surveys, ated Tribes of the Colville Reservation also are site form preparation, records management, provided an opportunity to comment on docu- and equipment use. Interviews were conducted ments and participate in cultural resource with Wanapum elders about sites that have tra- management activities. ditional significance on the Hanford Site.

52 Public Participation mailing list also is used to send topic-specific Citizens of the information to those state of Washington people who have re- and neighboring states quested it. Information may influence Hanford is provided on upcom- Site cleanup decisions ing decisions to elected through public partici- officials, community pation activities. leaders, special interest groups, and the media. The public is provided opportunities To inform the public to contribute their input of upcoming opportuni- and influence decisions ties for public participa- through many forums, tion, the Hanford Update, including Hanford a synopsis of all ongo- Advisory Board meet- ing and upcoming Tri-Party Agreement ings, Tri-Party Agree- Citizens of the state of Washington and neighboring states may public involvement ment activities, National influence Hanford Site cleanup decisions through public participa- Environmental Policy Act tion activities and public meetings. activities, is published public meetings cover- bimonthly. In addition, ing various environ- the Hanford Happenings mental impact statements, and other involvement calendar highlights Tri-Party Agreement meet- programs. ings and comment periods. It is distributed monthly to the entire mailing list. The Tri-Party Agreement provides a means for Hanford to become compliant with environ- To allow Hanford stakeholders and others mental regulatory requirements. to access up-to-date information, documents from the Tri-Party Agreement’s Administrative The Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Record and Public Information Repository are Public Involvement Community Relations Plan available on the World Wide Web at http:// outlines how public information and involvement www2.hanford.gov/arpir. activities are conducted for Tri-Party Agreement decisions. The Washington State Department The public can obtain information about of Ecology, DOE, and EPA developed and cleanup activities via a toll-free telephone line negotiated the plan with input from the public. (800-321-2008). Members of the public can The plan was approved in 1990. request information about any public participation activity and receive a response by calling The plan is updated as needed. The most the Office of Intergovernmental, Public, and recent revision occurred in 2002. The plan can Institutional Affairs (DOE Richland Operations be found on the Internet at www.hanford.gov/ Office) at (509) 376-7501. crp/toc.htm. Also, a calendar of public involvement A mailing list of about 3,300 individuals opportunities can be found on the Internet who have indicated an interest in participating at www.hanford.gov/calendar/. in Hanford Site decisions is maintained. The

53 Index

100 Area, 6, 14 200 Areas, 6 C 200 Areas Treated Effluent Disposal Facility, carbon-14, 38 12 carbon tetrachloride, 40, 42 242-A Evaporator, 12 Central Waste Complex, 13 300 Area, 2F, 6 cesium-137 400 Area, 6 food and farm products, 31 600 Area, 6 groundwater, 39 1100 Area, 6 vegetation, 35 wildlife, 32, 33 chinook salmon, 4, 47 A chloroform, 40 chromium, 29, 40 air, 22, 23, 25–26 clastic dikes, 43 animals Clean Air Act, 17 chromium, 40F Clean Water Act, 17 ecological monitoring, 45F, 47–48 climate, 46 on the Hanford Site, 3F, 4, 49F cobalt-60, 39 radioactivity, 24, 32–33 collective dose, 20 aquatic habitats, 26–29 Columbia River, 26–27, 28F archaeological sites, 50 community-operated monitoring stations, 23F, arsenic, 29 25, 36 compliance with regulations, 16–18, 50 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 17 B cone penetrometer, 41F contractors at Hanford Site, 7 background radiation, 19 coyotes, 3F bald eagles, 4 cultural resources, 17, 50, 51F, 52 biodiversity inventories, 48 curlews, 49F birds, 4, 17, 32–33, 45F, 49F cyanide, 41 borehole geophysical monitoring, 42 borrow pit restoration, 15 boundary dose, 20 budget of Hanford Site, 7

54 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti- cide Act, 17 D fish, 4, 32, 40F, 47 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology D Reactor, 15 Reserve, 15 decommissioning reactors, 14–15 fluoride, 41 dose from radiation, 19–20 fuel storage basins, 15, 22 double-shell tanks. See tanks, underground drinking water, 20, 26, 30 dust storms, 46 G gamma-emitting radionuclides, 31 E geese, 32–33 grapes, 30F, 31 ecological compliance, 47, 49 gross alpha concentrations, 26, 28, 29 ecosystem monitoring, 47–48 gross beta concentrations, 26, 28 Ecosystem Monitoring Project, 47 groundwater, 37–41 Effluent Treatment Facility, 12 Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration electrical transmission lines, 15 Project, 15 elk, Rocky Mountain, 47 Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act, 17 Endangered Species Act, 4, 16F, 17 H environmental management, 8–15 environmental monitoring, 21–44 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and environmental occurrences, 18 Consent Order, 8, 18, 53 environmental research, 45–50 Hanford Happenings, 53 environmental restoration, 14–15 Hanford Meteorology Station, 46 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council, 14, 42 51 external radiation, 36 Hanford Reach National Monument, 2–3 See also Columbia River Hanford Site, 2, 4–6, 7 Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Public F Involvement Community Relations Plan, 53 F Reactor, 15 Hanford Update, 53 facility effluent monitoring, 22 hawks, 4F, 45F fall chinook salmon, 4, 47 historic buildings, 50 farm and food products, 25F, 30F, 31 history of Hanford Site, 50 See also vegetation Horn Rapids irrigation station, 30 Fast Flux Test Facility, 20

55 National Environmental Policy Act, 17 National Historic Preservation Act, 50 I Native Americans, 50, 51, 52 naval reactors, 13 Indian tribes, 50, 51, 52 near-facility monitoring, 23–24 investigative sampling, 24 nitrate, 29, 40 iodine-129, 38 ionization chambers, 36 irrigation water, 29–30 O occurrences, 18 L operational areas, 6 organic compounds, 18, 27, 40–41, 42 landfills, 12, 42 laws. See regulations leachate monitoring, 42 leaks from underground tanks, 10 P lightning, 46F Liquid Effluent Retention Facility, 12 persistent sepal yellowcress, 48 liquid waste, 12, 22 Piper’s daisy, 48 Locke Island, 50 plants. See vegetation long-billed curlew, 49F plutonium, 34, 35, 39 polychlorinated biphenyls, 18 ponds, 12, 29 precipitation, 46 M pressurized ionization chambers, 36 public and radiation dose, 19–20 map of Hanford Site, 5F public involvement, 50, 53 maximally exposed individual, 19, 20 pump-and-treat systems, 38F, 39, 40 metals and anions, 27, 28–29, 40, 41 meteorology, 46 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 17 milk, 31 Q mission of Hanford Site, 7 monitoring, 21–44, 47–48 quality assurance, 44 mule deer, 48 N R rabbits, 33 N Springs, 24, 28 radiological dose, 19–20 See also riverbank springs radiological surveys, 36

56 radionuclides soil gas monitoring, 42 air, 26 soil-vapor extraction, 39, 42 Columbia River, 26, 27 Solid Waste Landfill, 42 food and farm products, 31 solid waste management, 9, 13 groundwater, 37–39 spectral gamma logging, 43F irrigation water, 30 stabilization of tanks, 10 ponds, 29 stakeholder involvement, 51–53 riverbank springs, 24, 27–28 State-Approved Land Disposal Site, 12 soil, 23–24, 25F, 34, 36 strontium-90 vegetation, 23–24, 34, 35 food, 31 wildlife, 24, 32–33 groundwater, 38 Rattlesnake Mountain, 7 irrigation water, 30 reactors, 6F, 13, 14–15, 20 soil, 34 red-tailed hawks, 4F springs, 24, 28 regulations, 16–18, 50 vegetation, 35 research on environment, 45–50 wildlife, 32, 33 research on vadose zone, 43 studies of vadose zone, 43 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 17 surface environmental surveillance, 25–36 restoration of environment, 14–15 Surface Environmental Surveillance Project, revegetation and mitigation planning, 15 25 See also vegetation surface water, 26–30 Richland Area North, 6 Swainson’s hawks, 45F Richland Pumphouse, 26, 27 risk, 19F River Protection Project, 11 riverbank springs, 24, 27–29 T Riverview area, 30, 31 tanks, underground, 6F, 9–11, 18F, 42 Rocky Mountain elk, 47 technetium-99, 38 technical studies in vadose zone, 43 temperature at Hanford Site, 46 S thermoluminescent dosimeters, 36 Toppenish, WA, 36 Safe Drinking Water Act, 17 Toxic Substances Control Act, 17 sagebrush, 15 Treated Effluent Disposal Facility, 12 Sagemoor area, 31 Tri-Party Agreement, 8, 18, 53 sediment, surface water, 27, 28F, 29 trichloroethene, 40 single-shell tanks. See tanks, underground tritium snow, 46 air, 26 soil food, 31 radioactivity, 23–24, 25F, 34, 36 groundwater, 37 remediation, 14 surface water, 26, 28 See also vadose zone 57 U W unsaturated zone, 41–43 Wanapum People, 52 See also soil waste creation and receipt, 9 unusual occurrence reports, 18 Waste Receiving and Processing Facility, 13 uranium Waste Treatment Plant, 8F, 11, 15 groundwater, 38 West Lake, 29 soil, 34 whitefish, 32 surface water, 26, 28, 29 wildlife vegetation, 35 chromium, 40F U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of River ecological monitoring, 45F, 47–48 Protection, 10 on the Hanford Site, 3F, 4, 49F U.S. Navy reactors, 13 radioactivity, 24, 32–33 wines and radionuclides, 30F, 31 V workers at Hanford Site, 7, 20 vadose zone, 41–43 Y See also soil Vadose Zone/Groundwater Integration yellowcress, persistent yellow, 48 Project, 15 vegetation inventories of Hanford Site, 4, 48 plantings, 15 Z radioactivity, 23–24, 34, 35 zone of aeration, 41–43 See also farm and food products See also soil vitrification, 8F, 10, 11 volatile organic compounds. See organic compounds

Pages containing photographs and figures are denoted with an F after the page number. Pages containing tables are denoted by T. 58 )

ear/Cut along dashed line

✄ Can We Make This Summary More Useful for You?

We want this summary to be easy to read and useful. To help continue this effort, please take a few minutes to let us know if the summary meets your needs. Then tear out this page, and mail or fax it to Bill Hanf, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-75, Richland, WA 99352. Phone: (509) 376-8264; Fax: (509) 376-2210 1. How do you use the information in this summary? ❑ To become more familiar with Hanford monitoring ❑ To send to others outside the Tri-Cities area ❑ To help me make a decision about moving to the Tri-Cities ❑ To prepare for public meetings on Hanford cleanup ❑ Other (please explain) ______2. What parts of the summary do you use? ❑ Hanford Site overview/mission ❑ Quality assurance ❑ Environmental research ❑ Public participation ❑ Environmental compliance ❑ Current issues and actions ❑ Environmental monitoring ❑ Hanford environmental programs ❑ Potential radiological doses from Hanford operations 3. Does this guide contain ❑ enough detail? ❑ too much detail? ❑ too little detail? Comment: ______4. If you could change this guide to make it more readable and useful to you, what would you change? ______5. What is your affiliation? ❑ Hanford Site contractor ❑ DOE ❑ State agency ❑ Federal agency ❑ Public interest group ❑ Member of the public ❑ Member of Native American Nation ❑ Local government ❑ University ❑ Industry 6. Other Comments? ______Thank you! 59 Acknowledgments

We thank Jane Winslow, WinSome Design, Inc., for designing the booklet and Kathy Neiderhiser, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, for providing text processing support. We also thank the following individuals and organizations for use of their photographs: Larry Bowman, Larry Cadwell, Andrea Currie, Janelle Downs, Laurie Hale, Dave Harvey, Duane Horton, John Thorpe, and Brett Tiller, Bechtel Hanford, Inc., and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 60